Vote 2016 Your Guide to the state candidates and issues for the November ballot

VOTE

2016

Your guide to the local and state candidates and issues on the November ballot A product of the Reporter-Herald

2 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

C ONTENTS Vote 2016 U.S. Senate .................................................................... Page 4 U.S. House ..................................................................... Page 6 Judicial Retention ......................................................... Page 7 Colo. House District 51 ................................................. Page 8 Colo. House District 49 ................................................. Page 9 Larimer Commissioner, District 3 ............................... Page 10 Larimer Commissioner, District 2 ............................... Page 11 Larimer Broadband ..................................................... Page 12 Mental Health Tax Issue ............................................. Page 12 Science/Cultural Facilities District .............................. Page 13 Thompson School District Tax Issues ......................... Page 14 Downtown Loveland Tax Issues ................................. Page 15 Amendment 69 .......................................................... Page 16 Amendment 70 .......................................................... Page 17 Amendment 71 .......................................................... Page 18 Amendment 72 .......................................................... Page 19 Proposition 106 .......................................................... Page 20 Propositions 107/108 ................................................. Page 21 Amendments T/U ....................................................... Page 22 CU Regent, At-Large ................................................... Page 23 Contributors: Saja Hindi, Pamela Johnson, Dana Rieck, Jeff Stahla, Michelle Vendegna, Shelley Widhalm and Craig Young.

Cover design, layout: Annika Mueller

Key Dates and Data About the 2016 Election Key dates: Oct. 4: Final day for county clerk to provide a list of election judges to both political parties.

Oct. 17: Ballots will be mailed to all active voters in the county.

Oct. 17: Final day to register to vote through a voter registration drive. In-office registrations available through election day.

Oct. 17: 24-hour ballot drop-off locations available.

Oct. 24: Polling centers will open.

Nov. 8: Election day. Clerk’s office will be open 7 a.m.-7 p.m., and drop-off sites will collect ballots through 7 p.m.

24-Hour ballot drop-off locations (Oct. 17-Nov. 8) • Loveland Vehicle Licensing Branch Office, 205 E. Sixth St., Loveland • Larimer County Courthouse, 200 W. Oak St., Fort Collins.

• Estes Park Vehicle Licensing Branch Office, 1601 Brodie Ave., Estes Park.

Voter Service and Polling Centers (Oct. 24-Nov. 8, except Sundays) • Larimer County Courthouse, 200 W. Oak St., first floor, Fort Collins.

• Loveland Police & Courts Building, 810 E. 10th St., Loveland.

• Estes Park Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park.

• CSU Lory Center, Lory Student Center, North Ballroom, Fort Collins.

• Council Tree Covenant Church, 4825 S. Lemay Ave., Fort Collins.

• Christ Center Community Church, 2700 S. Lemay Ave., first floor, Fort Collins.

• Elks Lodge, 1424 E. Mulberry Ave., Fort Collins.

Election day voter service and polling centers • Drake Centre, 802 W. Drake Ave., Fort Collins.

• King of Glory Lutheran Church, 2919 N. Wilson Ave., Loveland.

• American Legion, 2124 W. County Road 54G, LaPorte.

• River of Life Fellowship Church, 3161 E. County Road 62E, Wellington.

• Red Feather Lakes POA, 58 Firehouse Lane, Red Feather Lakes.

• The Ranch Events Complex, 5280 Arena Circle, Loveland.

• Brookside Gardens, 619 E. Colo. 56, Berthoud.

VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 3

U .S . S ENATE Candidate for U.S. Senate, Republican Darryl Glenn Name: Darryl Glenn Website: electdarrylglenn.com Age: 51 Family: Father of two daughters How long have you lived in Colorado?

Entire life Professional background: Licensed attorney in Colorado, an Air Force veteran with 21 years of distinguished service.

Political/community experience: Currently serving second term as an El Paso County Colorado District 1 commissioner, a champion for the people of El Paso County, working tirelessly to stimulate innovation, provide sound fiscal management and give a voice to fellow Coloradans; previously served

responsible development. Tax incentives, fee challenged. abatement and loan guarantees have Question 3: What is the biggest issue provided the appropriate level of government facing Congress this term? involvement to handle local infrastructure The No. 1 responsibility of government is concerns. to keep its citizens safe. To that end, Congress must work diligently to overcome threats to Question 2: In what areas will you Question 1: How can Glenn our national security, which include terrorism break away from party leadership to Congress deal with our perpetrated by ISIS and other radical Islamic crumbling and undersized infrastructure reach across the aisle? groups, the threat of nuclear weapons from While the Republican Party has in Northern Colorado? countries such as Iran and North Korea and traditionally been considered the party of While Congress has struggled to pass a our porous border that enables the fiscal conservatism, recent history has long-term fix for the nation’s infrastructure continuous flow of illegal immigrants to problems including the Highway Trust Fund, demonstrated a mixed track record. I will enter this country without screening or Northern Colorado has done an excellent job break from party leadership any time the documentation. principles of fiscal conservatism are of providing state and local incentives for two terms on the Colorado Springs City Council Education: A JD and an MBA, and a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy

Candidate for U.S. Senate, Democrat Michael Bennet Name: Michael Bennet Website: www.bennetforcolorado.com Age: 51 Family: Wife, Susan Daggett, a natural resources attorney, and three daughters: Caroline, Halina and Anne.

How long have you lived in Colorado?

Since 1997 Professional background: Former businessman and former superintendent of Denver Public Schools Political/community experience: Former chief of staff for Denver mayor John Hickenlooper, United States Senator from Colorado since 2009 Education: Wesleyan University, Yale Law School Question 1: How can Congress deal with our crumbling and undersized infrastructure in Northern Colorado?

Investing in infrastructure will mean more middle-class jobs for Colorado and I strongly support efforts to maintain and bolster our roads and bridges. We need to find a long-term Bennet solution to infrastructure funding, and I co-chaired a bipartisan Senate Finance Committee working group to address this very problem. We’ve also introduced a bipartisan bill to create a national infrastructure bank to finance road, bridge and water systems repairs. Recently, I worked with the Colorado delegation to secure a $15 million federal grant to expand the north I-25 corridor. This is a first step toward fixing the congestion that is stifling economic growth and affecting quality of life in Northern Colorado.

companies around the state.

Question 1: In what areas will you break away from party leadership to reach across the aisle?

Since I came to Congress, I’ve focused on cutting through Washington dysfunction to get things done for Colorado. I have a record of working with both Democrats and Republicans to advance our state’s interests — even if that means standing up to leaders in my own party. When the Obama administration proposed budget cuts that would have closed our Fort Collins Centers for Disease Control office, I fought against it to keep the CDC branch open. Today, it’s leading on research to combat the Zika virus. I also stood up to the Obama administration to stop unnecessary FDA regulations that would have hurt Colorado’s farmers and breweries and to maintain the Orion space program — which employs 1,000 Coloradans at 22

Question 2: What is the biggest issue facing Congress this term?

My number one priority is to help Colorado families get ahead, and to do that, we need to make Congress work better. I’ll work with anyone from either party to make progress on issues that matter to our state.

But whether on college affordability, sustainable energy policy or comprehensive immigration reform, getting results requires that Congress commit to collaboration. I’m proud that I have not once contributed to the dysfunction in Washington, and as your senator, I will continue pushing to get big money out of politics by overturning the disastrous Citizens United decision, banning members of Congress from ever becoming lobbyists and passing other reforms to help our democracy work better.

Other candidates for U.S. Senate Name: Lily Tang Williams crime, adopt carbon pollution tax.

Party: Libertarian Name: Bill Hammons Website: http://www.lily4liberty.com/ Party: Unity Some issues: Limited and constitutional government, Website: http://www.billisrunning.com/ Second Amendment rights, free market health care, economic Some issues: Passing balanced budget amendment, freedom and free enterprise.

Second Amendment rights, replace ObamaCare with “simplified Medicare” for all, local control of fracking and Name: Arn Menconi bans.

Party: Green Website: http://arnmenconi.com/ Name: Dan Chapin Some issues: End endless wars, adopt single-payer Party: Unaffiliated national health insurance, cut wasteful military budget, Website: http://danchapin.com/ aggressive crackdown on corporate welfare and corporate Some issues: Make election day paid national holiday, 4 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

tuition credit for all qualified students at colleges and universities, reform income tax system, stop TPP, legalize growing and production of Hemp products, establish cap and trade policy.

Name: Paul Noel Fiorino Party: Unaffiliated Website: http://www.fiorinoforcolorado.com/ Some issues: Campaign finance reform, overturn of Citizens United, voting rights, environmental hope with energy sustainability, new industry banking and agriculture, keeping families together with immigration reform and diplomacy on all levels of foreign policy.

VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 5

U .S . H OUSE U.S. House 2nd Congressional District challenger Republican Nicholas Morse Name: Nicholas Morse Website: nicmorseforcongress.com Age: 30 Family: Wife: Andrea, daughter: Emilia How long have you lived in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District? Since 2007. In Colorado since 2000.

Professional background: Before I entered the race, I was a marketing executive with Madwire Media in Loveland/Fort Collins.

Political/community experience: I was the treasurer for the Larimer County Republican Party before I became the nominee for the Republican Party in this congressional race.

Education: BA, Colorado State University (2009); MBA, Grand Canyon University (2013)

Question 1: How can Congress deal with our crumbling and undersized infrastructure in Northern Colorado?

One of the main duties of the federal government is to build roads.

Morse Since the inception of the Federal Road Act in 1916 to assist in state infrastructure, we have had the ability to help alleviate congestion and keep our ability to produce commerce, through transport, moving smoothly. Obviously, due to partisan bickering and impasses in Congress, we haven’t seen our infrastructure needs met. We need to introduce more legislation that spends billions on updating Colorado’s infrastructure and take that money out of what is being earmarked to go overseas in foreign aid.

Let’s fix our roads and highways before we build new ones overseas.

Question 2: In what areas will you break away from party leadership to reach across the aisle?

In any way that is needed to get the job done.

Something I said recently in an interview that I still agree with is that you don’t go to DC to play it safe and pay your dues. You go to DC to get things done. If my party is a part of the problem, I won’t hesitate to break party lines in order to move good legislation forward.

Question 3: What is the biggest issue facing Congress this term?

Lowering our national debt, keeping government funded and rebuilding our military.

U.S. House 2nd Congressional District incumbent Democrat Jared Polis Name: Jared Polis Website: www.polisforcongress.com Age: 41 Family: N/A How long have you lived in the 2nd Congressional District and in Colorado? Born in Boulder and lifetime resident.

Professional background: Entrepreneur and businessman Political/community experience: Elected to Colorado Board of Education 2000-2008, U.S. House of Representatives, 2009-present Education: Princeton University Question 1: How can Congress deal with our crumbling and undersized infrastructure in Northern Colorado?

Fixing I-25 has been my top infrastructure priority since being elected to represent Northern Colorado, and I am proud to say that this year we secured the federal funding needed to get that project started. By working with local elected officials and businesses we

have taken the first steps toward fixing our community’s main artery, securing a $15 million federal grant, we are working together to expand I-25 to begin to address the infrastructure needs of our growing communities in Northern Colorado.

Polis We also need a long-term solution to funding our nation’s infrastructure needs, that’s why I have worked with a bipartisan coalition in Congress to put forth an innovative solution to start a national infrastructure bank.

to pursue their dreams without interference. I support several government reforms that the party bosses of both parties don’t like. I support such solutions as a constitutional amendment that would force Congress to balance the federal budget, a constitutional amendment to limit special interest money in campaigns, and limiting lobbyists’ ability to influence lawmakers. It’s time government works for the people again and I will work with anybody to get this done.

Question 3: What is the biggest issue facing Congress this term?

Congress no longer works for the people. Special Question 2: In what areas will you break away interests’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money from party leadership to reach across the aisle? on campaigns is drowning out real people’s voices and Too many voters do not feel like the two parties the result is Congress only serves the interests of the represent them and that the party leaders in few and powerful. I am working hard to reduce big Washington, D.C., are more focused on scoring political money’s influence on our politics so that Congress can points than solving problems, and that the special make progress on the big issues facing my interests have too much power — I agree with them. constituents such as the high cost of higher education, I do belong to a political party, but first and foremost combating climate change, investment in infrastructure I am a Coloradan and an American who wants and expanding opportunity for all in our 21st century government to function and then make way for people economy.

Other candidates for U.S. House Name: Richard Longstreth Party: Libertarian Website: electlongstreth.com/ Some issues: Small and limited government, individual rights and liberty, free market economics, “taxation is theft.”

6 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

J UDICIAL R ETENTIONS Judicial commission recommends retention of local, state judges What is being voted on? Judges from the state level down are put before voters for retention or dismissal.

What does it mean locally? Members of the State Commission on Judicial Performance are unanimously recommending voters retain two district court judges up for retention in this year’s election based on performance evaluations.

According to the commission, Judge Gregory Lammons has been an 8th Judicial District judge since July 2010 and presides of over criminal, civil, domestic relations, and juvenile adoption cases.

Judge C. Michelle Brinegar was appointed to the Larimer District Court in December of 2013 and oversees criminal, civil, domestic relations, mental health and juvenile delinquency cases.

Three county court judges also have been recommended for retention.

Judges Mary Joan Berenato, Kraig Ecton and Joshua B. Lehman of the Larimer County

Court each received evaluations that signaled retention.

The performance evaluations were conducted by asking attorneys and people who have dealt with the judges in the court system.

“Commission members take this work seriously and strive to provide voters an honest, fair and reliable performance assessment of every judge standing for retention in Colorado,” said Kent Wagner, executive director of the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, said in a release. “... Citizens’ votes matter and will ultimately determine if the judge remains in office for another term.”

Surveys touched on topics such as the judges’ case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, diligence, demeanor and fairness.

Performance review results can be found at coloradojudicialperformance.gov/index.cfm

Judges on the ballot In addition to the Larimer County and 8th Judicial District (which includes Larimer and Jackson counties) judges on the November ballot up for retention, several state-level judges are also going in front of the voters.

Each has been recommended for retention.

They include: Colorado Supreme Court Justice William Hood Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Karen M. Ashby Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Michael H. Berger Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Steven L. Bernard Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Stephanie E. Dunn Colorado Court of Appeals Judge David Furman Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Robert D. Hawthorne Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Jerry N. Jones Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Anthony J. Navarro Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Gilbert M. Román Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Diana Terry

WORKING TOGETHER, WORKING FOR YOU! Steve Johnson

County Commissioners Steve and Tom are working hard to:

Larimer Countyy Commissioner, District 2

• Hold down taxes, refunding $2.5 Million in property taxes to taxpayers this year • Expand Mental Health and Substance Abuse treatment options • Fix I-25 with an historic funding agreement • Open a new county building in Loveland • Complete our natural disaster recovery work • Improve Senior services and transportation • Create jobs and support local businesses • Achieve affordable housing solutions • Listen to citizens and solve problems without partisan politics

Tom Donnelly Larimer County Commissioner, District 3

Steve is

Tom is

• A 38-year resident of Larimer County • retired veterinarian, teacher, CSU graduate, community volunteer • Experienced with over 20 years in state and county government • A proven problem solver bringing people together

• A two decade resident of the City of Loveland with 4 kids in Thompson Schools • Larimer County Commissioner since 2009 • A Professional Land Surveyor and former elected County Surveyor • The regional leader on I-25 expansion!

Steve was chosen as the Colorado County Commissioner of the Year for 2015 Paid for by the Committee to Elect Steve Johnson

www.tom4larimer.com Facebook.com/TomDonnellyForCommissioner Paid for by Committee to Elect Tom Donnelly

Keep this team working for you! Vote for Tom Donnelly and Steve Johnson!

VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 7

H OUSE D ISTRICT 51 Colorado House District 51 Republican Hugh McKean Name: Hugh McKean Website: mckeanforstatehouse.com Age: 48 Family: Kristin, married 26 years; children: Hanna and Aiden; two dogs: Laika and Villemo; and two cats: Lily and Mira How long have you lived in Loveland: 19 years Professional background: Contractor/corporate flight services Political/Community experience: City councilor (seven years), member of Thompson School District Master Planning Committee (1K years), member of New Vision Charter School Board (one year), member of Immanuel Lutheran Church, member of United States Coast Guard Auxiliary (12 years) Education: Bachelor of arts degree, Colorado State University Question 1: How should the Colorado Legislature address

inadequate infrastructure in Northern Colorado beyond current efforts?

There are more issues than just I-25 McKean when we talk about infrastructure, but we need to focus on our most critical transportation need first. The expansion of I-25 will require nearly $1 billion. I plan to sponsor a TransBondsII bill this next session, building on the successes of last year for that legislation. Our Colorado Department of Transportation estimated that the addition of a third lane would be appropriate around the year 2065.

Our residents cannot afford to lose hours away from their families stuck in traffic on the interstate. It is a critical lifeline to Colorado and to our communities and it must be fixed.

proper role of government and the balance of services and burden of taxes needed to provide the citizens what they cannot do for themselves. This fall, there are seven tax issues on our ballot.

Every citizen needs to look at those and decide if they meet the reasonable value test. Is this something government should do and is this the best way it should do it?

Central to my career on the Loveland City Council has been a fiscally conservative approach to running the city. I often say that, “I treat every dollar as if it were my own.” My vote, as always, is a reflection of what is important to me and my family but also what I think is important to our community. I am but one voter out of Question 3: Which of the local tax issues do you support and why? many. The question of how I will vote is less important than showing voters In this campaign for the Colorado how I think about how their House of Representatives, we are government should function. having great discussions about the Question 2: What policies should the state Legislature enact to foster more housing options throughout the state?

One of the problems we have in Colorado where rising housing prices are concerned is a lack of inventory of townhomes. The current legal uncertainty in projects such as these and the lack of available financing keeps developers and contractors from building these entry level homes. We need to see legislation aimed at fixing the problems with construction-defects law so we can enable home builders to fill this important niche.

Colorado House District 51 Democrat Jody Shadduck-McNally Name: Jody Shadduck-McNally Website: jodyforco51.com Age: 50 Family: Married to Tom McNally; children: Ethan, Dylan and Delaney Education: Bachelor of science, University of Colorado; master of science, University of New Mexico Political/community experience: Thompson School District “District Level”: Accountability Advisory Committee, District Budget Proposal Team, Thompson 2 Life Team, Strategic Planning Oversight Team, Curriculum Improvement Council, Superintendent’s Joint Advisory Committee, Positive Behavior Intervention/Support Team School Accountability Committees: Seven district schools including serving as chairman/vice chair at several, cofounder/president NOCO Gifted Community.

Question 1: How should the Colorado Legislature address

8 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

inadequate infrastructure in Northern Colorado beyond current efforts?

The Colorado Legislature has to put Shadduckaside its partisan McNally gridlock and help our communities fix the problems that are restricting our commerce, funding for our educational institutions and limiting many families’ quality of life.

We have to make a change and work together to stop this political insanity.

Question 2: What policies should the state Legislature enact to foster more housing options throughout the state?

We’re going to have to address our public policies that stand in the way of financing, insuring and producing more affordable single-family housing. In listening to my neighbors in

a very deep understanding of the needs for the deferred maintenance in Thompson and the bold solution for the plan. I also support the efforts to attract and retain highly qualified teachers for our students, and to stay competitive with wages that are comparable for Northern Colorado.

The initiative for a regional mental health center in Larimer County is another initiative I support. I know firsthand how the system is gridlocked within ERs and law enforcement when dealing with individuals who need Question 3: Which of the local tax issues do you support and why? mental health support and substance abuse intervention. The challenge of I have always supported public transporting and transferring people education and Thompson Schools. out of the county because we do not Loveland knows that our schools are good but can be better. I love our kids have these services is expensive and time consuming, and not a prudent use and support their future endeavors. I have been partnering and working with of taxpayer money. I have spoken to the Master Plan Committee, the District law enforcement leaders and medical Accountability Committee and the Joint personnel at every hospital in Northern Advisory Committee for over a year on Colorado and agree with their support the Thompson Reinvented Plan. I have of this facility. construction I have been hearing about the cost of insuring carpenters and other building professionals which makes it impossible to budget. The lack of income growth is affecting financing and some mortgage requirements don’t really reflect today’s market. We have to work together to find practical solutions to these complex market conditions. We also need to find a compromise on the construction defects challenges. We can do this.

H OUSE D ISTRICT 49 Colorado House District 49 Republican incumbent Perry Buck

Democratic challenger for Colorado House District 49 Buzz Sweeney

Name: Perry L. Buck Website: Perryforcolorado.com Age: 54 Family: Married to Ken Buck; children: Cody and Kaitlin How long have you lived in the House District 49 area? Third generation Weld County resident — live in Windsor Professional background: New York Life agent and event planner Political/community experience: Weld County Council, United Way Board/Campaign chair, Rotary Board, nonprofit boards, Weld GOP chair, Colorado GOP vice chair, president of Colorado Federation of Republican Women, two terms in the General Assembly and candidate for third term Education: English degree, Pepperdine University; accounting graduate work, Fort Lewis College.

Name: Adrian “Buzz” Sweeney Website: Buzz4COHouse.com Age: 70 Family: Married to Anita Trapp, three adult children, five school-age grandchildren How long have you lived in the House District 49 area? Six years Professional background: Taught the fifth grade, real estate broker, international industrial sales Political/community experience: Several nonprofit boards, HOAs. This is my first attempt to seek elected office.

Education: Degree in Elementary Education

Buck the sum can be put towards transportation projects all over Colorado.

Question 3: What policies should the state Legislature enact to foster more housing Question 1: Which of the Larimer County tax issues do you options throughout the state?

The Legislature has tried, but support and why? unsuccessfully, to pass a constructionMunicipal and county tax issues are for the people to decide at the ballot defects bill in Colorado. This bill helped the state to create an box. environment for home builders to Question 2: How should the build more houses instead of creating Colorado Legislature address an overly litigious environment. This inadequate infrastructure in needs to change in 2017 as the bill Northern Colorado beyond has bipartisan support. The current efforts?

Legislature recently passed two bills I always ask myself what is the that helps the housing issue. One is role of government and one of the the first time homeowner tax credit top roles in my mind is providing state highways that are safe. Senate and another bill offers home builders a tax credit incentive that encourages Bill 16-210 addressed the funding building low income housing. mechanism for our roads but unfortunately the bill did not pass. It Communities also need to seek other opportunities like Habitat for is my hope that we bring the bill back again and get it passed in 2017. Humanity or other nonprofits.

If anyone has any questions, please With interest rates at their lowest in call 970-302-4013 — my priority is history, the state can bond against listening to the people in House new and existing revenue to generate$3.5 billion in bond proceeds, District 49.

Question 1: Which of the Larimer County tax issues do you support and why?

I support and encourage the passage of the Poudre School District tax. To keep pace with the 500 new students in our school system each year.

I support and encourage the passage of the proposed Larimer County Behavior Health facility. It is better for Larimer County to treat illness than to simply jail the offenders.

I support and encourage the passage of the proposed Arts and Culture tax. Art works toward the betterment of all our citizens.

Question 2: How should the Colorado Legislature address inadequate infrastructure in

Sweeney

Northern Colorado beyond current efforts?

Some of our issues stem from the coupling of our high desert climate with a growing population.

We need to follow an integrated agriculture, water, transportation and affordable housing plan to support a larger and age-diverse future population.

Question 3: What policies should the state Legislature enact to foster more housing options throughout the state?

Communities are dependent on the existence of transportation (roads, Interstate Highways, and commuter bus and rail) and the availability of water and schools.

The Legislature can plan transportation hubs (commuter rail and bus) around which developers can build homes.

VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 9

L ARIMER C OUNTY C OMMISSIONER D ISTRICT 3 Larimer County Commissioner District 3 Republican incumbent Tom Donnelly Name: Tom Donnelly Website: Tom4Larimer.com & Facebook.com/TomDonnellyForCommissio ner Age: 45 Family: Wife of 18 years, Lexy, and four kids: Jack, 16, Joseph, 13, Teddy, 10, and Cate, 8, all in Thompson schools.

How long have you lived in Larimer County? 22-year resident of the city of Loveland Professional background: Professional land surveyor Political/community experience: Larimer County commissioner since 2009, two-term chair of North Front Range Metropolitan Organization, past MPO representative-statewide Transportation Advisory Committee, former elected county surveyor, former member of Loveland Planning Commission Education: Attended Kansas State University

Question 1: How important is it to have a Larimer County building in Loveland and what are the plans moving forward?

Donnelly As the only Larimer County elected official from Loveland, and the only commissioner candidate from here as well, replacing the nearly 60-year-old county building in Loveland is a priority to me. I pushed for the county to go back to the ballot to free up previously collected sales tax dollars to build a new facility in Loveland, rather than rehabilitating the existing, undersized facility (that ballot measure was approved by 76 percent of voters in 2013). This new county building will be built and paid for with cash without requiring any new taxes or issuance of any bond debt. The county has acquired land and has begun planning a full

public process moving forward to determine what services should be included in the new facility.

Question 2: What are your top priorities for addressing growth in Larimer County? The commissioners have been very proactive in dealing with issues resulting from growth. Chief among these is dealing with traffic congestion. I developed the historic plan that called for local entities to contribute local revenues toward the expansion of I-25 to six lanes (the first expansion since the highway was built in the ‘50s), and championed that effort’s success by seeing that Larimer County was the first and largest local contributor. Our public landfill, considered by residents the county’s most important service, is within 10 years of the end of its usable life. The commissioners have been working collaboratively with our municipal partners to plan the future of solid waste services in the county. The county

is currently holding a series of public forums to get citizen input on this important issue.

Question 3: What should Larimer County do to address issues of poverty, affordable housing and homelessness in the county?

Behavioral health issues are commonly seen among the demographic that is most strongly impacted by poverty and homelessness. That is why the commissioners referred to the ballot an initiative that would fill the service gaps for this demographic by building a behavioral health facility. Furthermore, I have convened a Housing Affordability Working Group, with representatives from government and private sector partners, including groups that work on affordable housing, to develop and implement countywide strategies to foster more diverse and attainable housing in the county.

Larimer County Commissioner District 3 Democratic challenger Karen Stockley Name: Karen Stockley Website: karenstockley.com Age: 54 Family: Husband Jay; children: Jason 32, Seth 22, Rhiannon, 20, Annelise, 18, and Fallon, 16 How long have you lived in Larimer County? Larimer County: more than 17 years Professional Background: Worked in law firms prior to staying home with my kids. Owner of two antique shops Political/Community Experience: Previously: Thompson Board of Education treasurer, school board Legislative Commission, Berthoud Planning and Zoning, Berthoud Master Planning Committee, Larimer Jail Tax Committee, Berthoud Museum, Rockridge Preservation Group.

Education: Western State College; Platt College Business School Question 1: How important is it

10 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

to have a Larimer County Building in Loveland and what are the plans moving forward?

It is critical and I am absolutely committed Stockley to have a county building in the southern part of Larimer County. I believe county officials have been meeting “one-on-one” with local officials, trying to determine the final site. There are rumors that land is being purchased, but there has been little to no transparency for the public in this process. As with the location of the mental health center, this should be a joint effort between the politicians and citizens who deserve a voice in this process.

Question 2: What are your top priorities for addressing growth in Larimer County?

Growth is occurring rapidly and we are at a critical juncture for Larimer County. First and foremost is planning for this growth by ensuring each community has a master plan for land use, a transportation plan and other infrastructure plans to make certain each community can handle the growth.

Appropriate development fees and land use codes that protect the community from sprawl and ensure open spaces, parks and the monies to pay for street repairs are a must. Communication and collaboration between adjacent communities is necessary to protect and individualize each community. Finding the best place for retail development as well as developments that allow for work/play/amenities all within walking distance is the future of smart development and for preventing sprawl.

We must protect our natural resources as well as the special places that bring people to Northern Colorado.

Question 3: What should Larimer County do to address issues of poverty, affordable housing, and homelessness in the county?

There is much current commissioners could be doing, yet have not done, to address these issues. I have plans to implement two ways to work on improving affordable housing, one of the biggest issues facing Larimer County.

Young people cannot afford to live here!

Along with affordable housing, we can build low-income housing for the homeless, allowing them to address the core reasons why they are homeless, thereby getting them off the streets and becoming proud citizens, while saving taxpayers about 2/3 more money than what it costs now to police and incarcerate these folks. With a mental health center, we can keep many troubled individuals out of jail, saving taxpayers money and improving the lives of our friends and neighbors.

L ARIMER C OMMISSIONER D ISTRICT 2 Steve Johnson: Larimer County Board of Commissioners District 2 Steve Johnson Website: facebook.com /commissionerstevejohnson Age: 56 Family: Lynette, wife of 30 years How long have you lived in Larimer County: 38 years Professional background: Retired veterinarian, high school teacher and college chemistry instructor. Ran a small business in Loveland for 16 years.

Political/community experience: Larimer County commissioner for the past eight years, Colorado state representative for six years, Colorado state senator for six years with two yeas on the state Joint Budget Committee. Also served for nine years on the Larimer County Planning Commission and is past president of the United Way of Loveland, Berthoud and Estes Park.

Education: Doctorate in veterinary medicine and a bachelor’s degree in chemistry with a minor in political

science, all from Colorado State University.

Question 1: What are your top priorities for addressing Johnson growth in Larimer County?

By 2043, half a million people will live in Larimer County, with senior citizens being the fastest growing age group. It is essential to our quality of life that county services keep up with this demand. Often this means doing more with less, which this board has achieved through collaboration with other governments, private nonprofits, and the faith community. My priorities are: improved mental health and substance abuse treatment; fixing I-25 and improving transportation options, especially for seniors; more parks and open space recreational opportunities; and a better

county services building in Loveland with parking for south county residents.

Question 2: What should Larimer County do to address affordable housing, poverty and homelessness?

Larimer County is very active and a key player in poverty, homelessness, and affordable housing issues. First and foremost, we must work in partnership with the many other entities addressing these challenges to get the best possible results from our investment. We play the key role in running safety net programs.

These programs provide food assistance, child support payments, and medical care.

We’re helping welfare clients get good jobs with a program we started this year with our workforce center that has been recognized as one of the three best programs in the nation. This board has convened an affordable housing task force and is participating in another. We have doubled our support to KidsPak, which

sends food home to school kids, and increased out support to the Larimer Food Bank. Our workforce center helps over 19,000 citizens a year with job searches.

Question 3: How important is it to have a Larimer County building in Loveland, and what should the process be moving forward?

This board is committed to a county building in Loveland with adequate parking and space to meet the needs of south county residents. We have purchased property on First Street and Denver Avenue that can accomplish this goal and has space for future needs. We are working collaboratively with the city of Loveland on the development approval process to get the building open as soon as possible. Finally, we are beginning a public process to reach out to neighboring residents to make sure their concerns are addressed and that we are a good neighbor in this location.

Bill Wright: Larimer County Board of Commissioners District 2 Bill Wright Website: wrightforlarimer county.com Age: 62 Family: Wife, Sally Dyekman Wright; son, Chris and wife, Grace Hanley Wright; daughter Danielle Wright Schwinn and husband, Adam Schwinn.

How long have you lived in Larimer County: 62 years, a third generation native.

Professional background: High school teacher for more than 21 years in the Poudre School District in Fort Collins, owner/operator of a graphic design business for 28 years and past experience as a marketing manager.

Political/community experience: Organized food drives for the Food Bank of Larimer County, volunteered for Special Olympics, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, coached youth baseball, softball, basketball and soccer and served as a negotiator for the teacher’s union in the Poudre School District.

Education: Master’s degree in

education from Lesley University and a bachelor’s degree in English and secondary education from the University of Northern Colorado.

there temporarily. People renting apartments are looking forward to owning their own homes. Affordable Question 1: What are your top single-family homes are priorities for addressing growth in the answer.

Wright Larimer County?

Population growth It is essential for all of the cities and means more traffic and we need a townships to work together with the comprehensive road plan that is master County Commissioners to create a planned to minimize traffic congestion and comprehensive plan for growth that emphasizes alternative modes of includes protecting farm lands, transportation. preservation of our rivers, and planned Question 2: What should Larimer communities that minimize urban sprawl. County do to address affordable One of the most vital areas concerned housing, poverty and homelessness? with growth is water needs. It will be one a) I have a plan to bring affordable of my top priorities to protect the water single-family homes to Larimer County. needs and rights of farmers as the Homes that will sell for 150 thousand population increases. I would lead the dollars to take some of the pressure off commission in aggressively pursuing water spiraling home prices. rights as they become available as a b) I will work with community leaders cushion against further needs. to improve the SNAP program to get I do not believe the people are best people who are food insecure the help served by more apartment complexes they need. Doing this will bring up to 56 where that population is, by nature, only Million Federal dollars into the economy

that we haven’t gotten the last two years.

I will work to get small businesses a lower rate on property taxes. The money saved will be reinvested and create new job opportunities to help lift people out of poverty. A coalition of private companies and government entities is necessary to grow our economy and help all people. c) Cities, towns, the county, and nonprofit entities must create a coalition to address the root causes of homelessness Question 3: How important is it to have a Larimer County building in Loveland, and what should the process be moving forward?

I do not believe a new building is needed in Loveland. The money necessary for a multimillion dollar building would be better used to help the people of the county. The current county building serves the people well. I do believe the county needs to have offices in Loveland and Estes Park to provide basic services for the people. But, these can be housed in existing government buildings.

VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 11

M ENTAL H EALTH/B ROADBAND Larimer County Issue 1A: Mental health facility ballot question What it asks: Mental health, detox/substance abuse facility and services shall Larimer County taxes be increased $16,500,000.00 dollars annually (estimated first fiscal year dollar increase in 2017), and by whatever additional amount is raised annually thereafter, for a period of 25 years by the imposition of a 0.25% (25 cents on 100 dollars) sales and use tax with all revenue resulting from such tax to be used to construct, improve, maintain, and operate a treatment and detox facility for mental health, substance abuse, and alcohol abuse and to operate out-patient and support services in connection therewith; and shall the county be authorized to collect and spend the proceeds of such tax without limitation by Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution?

What it means: The question is asking whether Larimer County voters want to approve a 0.25-percent tax to fund a mental and

behavioral health facility. This tax increase would equate to a $16,500,000 annual increase in tax revenue for 25 years and would be put toward the construction of a mental health facility that would treat patients with mental health and substance and alcohol abuse issues.

The money would also be put toward maintaining and operating the facility and conducting out-patient and support services.

What proponents say: Proponents say the county is in desperate need of a facility to address health and behavioral issues that currently are thrown into the hands of law enforcement officers to handle. At a Larimer County commissioners meeting in early August residents, local government officials and people in law enforcement addressed the commission about the need for a facility by citing arguments including jail population reduction, aiding people to overcome addictions.

Proponents also say another major reason this

facility is necessary is that it will provide mental health and substance abuse services for those who could not afford it otherwise — as some insurances do not cover such services.

What opponents say: Local government critics Larry Sarner and Eric Sutherland outwardly opposed this ballot question at the same August Larimer County commissioners meeting. They listed multiple concerns about funding a facility including the idea that the county shouldn’t be heading the initiative. In addition, some argue the possibility of Amendment 69 passing would equate to funding for mental health care. Sarner the money asked for by the tax is too high.

Sutherland added the ballot language used is confusing. In addition, other opponents may argue that public funding through Medicare and Medicaid should be used to treat mental health and substance abuse issues — not taxpayer money.

Larimer County Issue 1B: Broadband Internet What it means: In 2005, the Colorado Legislature passed a law intended to keep government from competing with private What it asks: “Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of Larimer County Colorado re- business. The law, Senate Bill 152, requires local establish Larimer County’s right to provide any governments to gain voter approval before they can directly or indirectly provide high-speed and all services and facilities restricted since internet service. Larimer County’s Question 1B 2005 by Title 29, Article 27 of the Colorado would remove that ban and allow Larimer Revised Statutes, described as ‘Advanced County to look into ways of providing Services’ (high-speed internet), broadband internet to residents and businesses ‘Telecommunication Services,’ and ‘Cable Television Services,’ including but not limited to in unincorporated areas.

What supporters say: In today’s digital any new and improved broadband services and facilities based on future technologies, utilizing world, high-speed internet is a critical component of a community’s infrastructure, as existing or new community owned important as good roads. More and more infrastructure including but not limited to the Colorado cities and counties are overturning existing fiber optic network, either directly, or indirectly with public or private sector partners, Senate Bill 152’s ban, leaving residents and businesses in Larimer County’s unincorporated to potential subscribers that may include areas at a disadvantage. High-speed internet telecommunications service providers, service increases the competitiveness of residential or commercial users within the businesses and improves the quality of life and boundaries of Larimer County?”

Larimer County broadband Question 1B

12 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

safety of residents. Larimer County doesn’t provide any utility service now, and county officials have said that it’s unlikely that they would get into the business of directly providing broadband service.

What opponents say: Although internet providers have fought similar initiatives in Colorado in previous years, arguing that government shouldn’t be competing with their businesses, no organized opposition has formed to the Larimer County broadband initiative.

Opponents of municipal involvement generally maintain that providing internet service isn’t the role of local government. They say experience shows that governments that get into the broadband business almost always lose money. Opponents say that private industry already is providing high-speed internet service, and if there’s a real demand for better or more broadband, the market will respond.

S CIENCE AND CULTURAL FACILITIES D ISTRICT TAX Supporters of a local effort to create a science and cultural facilities district carry petitions July 20 through Old Town Fort Collins on their way to the Larimer County Courthouse.

The petitions were accepted, placing the tax issue on the November ballot.

JENNY SPARKS Loveland Reporter-Herald

Larimer County Issue 200: Scientific and Cultural Facilities District What it asks:

million for science and cultural arts programs and generate an estimated $70 “Shall taxes be increased $6,646,028 million dollars of economic activity in annually (estimated in the first year) or Larimer County annually. The SCFD will such greater amount as is raised in What it means: ensure increased access to all, providing subsequent years within Larimer County, One cent of every $10 in sales on taxable access to the people and families of Larimer Colorado by an increase of a one-tenth of a items in Larimer County will go to Scientific County to life-enriching experiences that cent sales and use tax generated on all and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD). Eligible contribute to our quality of life. SCFD taxable items; said tax increase to funding will help keep admission prices low groups to receive funds are 501(c)(3) commence January 1, 2017 and to expire for arts, science, nature, history and cultural nonprofits in the visual and performing on December 31, 2026; and shall The arts, cultural and natural history or natural organization to offer more free days to the Larimer County Scientific And Cultural public each year. This dedicated funding sciences. Within SCFD are the sustainable Facilities District (“district”) be established from the SCFD will allow small and large fund, eligible groups receive an equal pursuant to Section 32-13-101 and organizations alike to develop a diversity percentage, and the innovation fund, a following, Colorado Revised Statutes, which and collaboration of (in) programming that district shall receive proceeds from said tax, grant process for collaborations and offers something for everyone. Additionally, initiatives. and shall said district be authorized to SCFD funding provides some financial collect, retain and spend such additional stability, so that these organizations are revenue generated by said tax, along with What supporters say: better able to tolerate economic “Ballot measure 200 is good for our all other available revenue, notwithstanding any applicable limitations on revenues and community. For a very small investment of uncertainty. The SCFD will enhance fun, adventure and learning activities, making expenditures, including the limitations set one penny on $10 dollars, the dedicated forth in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado revenue stream created will generate $6.6 Larimer County a greater place than ever Constitution, the limitations in Section 291-301, Colorado Revised Statutes or any other law in years 2017 through 2026?”

before to live work and play.” said Kelly Giddens, SCFD campaign manager, via email.

What opponents say: There is no organized opposition to this issue. A similar issue passed in 1989 in the Denver area in with bipartisan support.

However, opponents cite that some possible recipients already have access to governmental funding and grants; that the process for vetting possible recipients for such grants has not been fully described and that cultural and scientific facilities of this nature are outside the core services that should be paid for with taxpayer money.

In the case of the Denver-area district, tensions between the larger recipients of grant funding and smaller groups forced some changes in the distribution model that will be voted upon this year by that district’s voters.

VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 13

T HOMPSON S CHOOL D ISTRICT Issue 3E: Thompson School District Bond

Issue 3D: Thompson School District Mill Levy Override

Issue 3E: Thompson School District Bond What it asks: “Shall Thompson School District R2-J’s debt be increased $288 million with a repayment cost of $535.5 million or such lesser amount as may be necessary, and shall Thompson School District R-2J’s taxes be increased $26.7 million annually or such lesser amount as may be necessary for the payment of such debt, all for the purpose of providing infrastructure for district students to develop the necessary skills to compete for the jobs of the future by: • Upgrading school building safety, security and fire alarm systems; • Extending the useful life of aging school buildings by replacing, repairing and upgrading heating, ventilation and cooling systems and mechanical controls, plumbing, roofs, windows and doors, removing asbestos and making building exterior improvements; • Constructing, furnishing and equipping a new high school and a new K-8 school, and school additions and facilities, including additions to Berthoud High School and Berthoud Elementary School at Thompson Valley High School; • Renovating and remodeling Bill Reed Middle School and Thompson Valley High School and remodeling the existing Loveland High School to a K-8 school ...”

(Complete ballot language will be available online at larimer.org/elections and thompsonschools.org).

What it means: Should the school district borrow $288 million to pay for

Issue 3D: Thompson School District Mill Levy Override What it asks: “Shall Thompson School District R2-J’s taxes be increased $11 million annually by a levy of 6.5 mills in the 2016-17 budget year and by whatever amount is raised by a levy of 6.5 mills in each budget year thereafter by the collection of property taxes for the following educational purposes: • Establishing the district as a competitive employer by increasing compensation to attract and retain high quality employees; • Updating textbooks, curriculum, materials and instructional programs; and • Purchasing and replacing school buses ...” (Complete ballot language will be available online at www.larimer.org/elections and www.thompsonschools.org).

What it means: Should property owners pay more taxes each year to supplement the Thompson School District’s budget to pay for staff raises, educational materials and buses? District officials say the tax would amount to $113.52 per year on a $200,000 home and $206.67 per year for each $100,000 of commercial value and would never expire.

What supporters say: State funding cuts have left the district falling behind on with salaries, curriculum and buses, which affects students and the entire community, which is growing quickly and needs to provide a top education for all students. Recruiting and retaining quality teachers is an essential factor to that goal. The Thompson School District is an average of 14 percent behind neighboring districts in salary, and this tax would allow for a 3 percent salary increase. Money from a mill levy also would allow the district to replace about 30 buses and pay for curriculum upgrades, new text books and other support items, which the district desperately needs. A third of the district’s buses are more than 20 years old with more than 200,000 miles each.

What opponents say: This tax, paired with a bond issue also on the ballot, is too much to ask of taxpayers, many of whom are struggling just to survive. An increase in property taxes would affect the economy through its strain on low- and fixed-income residents, could result in many not being able to afford their homes and could lead to a hike in rent with the additional taxes passed on from landlord to renter. Instead, the district should do a better job educating students with the budget it currently has, should work harder to improve achievement with the money it already has.

14 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

$72 million in deferred maintenance, to remodel existing schools and to build two new schools to help the district provide a quality education? The debt would be repaid over 25 years through increased property taxes, which district officials say would cost $165.72 per year for a $200,000 home and $285.06 per year per $100,000 of actual commercial value.

What supporters say: With the state cutting funding to the Thompson School District by about $14 million per year, students are suffering with aging facilities in major need of maintenance, with schools that need upgraded and with the need for schools in growing areas of the district. This bond would allow the district to catch up on $72 million in maintenance for needs that cover every school in the district, to build two new schools in areas of growth, to alleviate overcrowding, to open programs that are closed because they are full and to create innovative learning environments throughout the district with remodels and a fresh approach.

What opponents say: This tax, coupled with a mill levy override that is also on the ballot, is too large of a burden for taxpayers, many of whom are already struggling to survive, and would cause a ripple effect in residents being able to afford their homes and in rising rents. This could affect small businesses and the overall economy as people, scraping by, do not have money to spend because they are using it on school taxes.

The district should focus on student achievement with the money they have and, at a future election, ask voters for a scaled down, more reasonable bond.

D OWNTOWN L OVELAND Issue 5E: Loveland Downtown Development Authority bonding authority Loveland Downtown Development Authority bonding authority Loveland Issue 5E

collect, retain and spend the tax increment revenues, the bond proceeds and investment income thereon as a voter-approved revenue change, and exception to the limits which would otherwise apply under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution or any other law?”

What it means: Residents, property owners and business owners within What it asks: “Shall City of Loveland debt be increased $75,000,000, Loveland’s Downtown Development Authority boundaries are being asked to with a repayment cost of no more than $200,000,000, for the purpose of grant the city permission to borrow up to $75 million, with a payback financing the costs of development projects to be undertaken by or on amount no higher than $200 million, for Downtown Development Authority behalf of the Loveland Downtown Development Authority pursuant to the infrastructure projects, an to give the DDA an exemption from the taxing and Loveland Downtown Development Authority Plan of Development, as it may spending limits of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. The question says the bonds be amended from time to time, including without limitation, parking, would be paid back by the incremental increases in tax revenue from new utilities, streets, sidewalks, alleyways and beautification, and applicable development in downtown. provisions of Colorado law; such debt and the interest thereon to be payable What supporters say: Downtown Loveland has been neglected and is in from and secured by a pledge of the special fund of the city which shall need of maintenance and infrastructure upgrades. Selling bonds would give contain tax increment revenues levied and collected within the boundaries of the DDA the means to make long-term improvements. Also, being allowed to the authority; and shall such debt be evidenced by bonds, notes, contracts or use the increases in tax revenue from downtown development would keep other financial obligations to be sold in one series or more for a price above the money downtown. or below the principal amount thereof, on terms and conditions and with What opponents say: Taxpayers already carry a heavy burden and can’t such maturities as permitted by law and as the city may determine, afford any more taxes, and the city should find other ways to pay for including provisions for redemption of the debt prior to maturity with or downtown improvements. Also, using tax-increment financing takes money away from other taxing authorities such as the school district and Larimer without payment of the premium of not more than 3% of the principal County. amount so redeemed; and shall the city and the authority be authorized to

Issue 5D: DDA property tax increase DDA property tax increase City of Loveland Issue 5D What it asks: “Shall the City of Loveland taxes be increased $198,000 in tax collection year 2017 and by such amount as may be raised annually thereafter by an ad valorem property tax rate of not more than 5.00 mills on taxable real and personal property within the boundaries of the Loveland Downtown Development Authority, for the purposes set forth in Title 31, Article 25, Part 8, C.R.S, including without limitation, maintenance projects for sidewalks, street cleaning, litter pickup, and landscape maintenance; and shall the city and the authority be authorized to collect, retain and spend the revenues collected from such total property tax rate, investment income thereon and any other lawful source as a voter-approved revenue change and exception to the limits which would otherwise apply under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution or any other law?”

What it means: Residents, property owners and business owners within Loveland’s Downtown Development Authority boundaries are being asked to permanently increase their own property taxes by up to 5 mills, raising an estimated $198,000 in the first year, to fund the Downtown Development

Authority’s maintenance work. The measure also would give the DDA an exemption from the taxing and spending limits of the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

What supporters say: A flourishing downtown is essential to the health of any city. Downtown Loveland has been neglected for years and is in need of maintenance and infrastructure upgrades. Bringing Loveland’s downtown district back to health will take time, effort and funding. A tax on properties in the district would provide the Downtown Development Authority with a steady source of income for immediate needs, such as sidewalk and street cleaning, litter pickup and landscape maintenance. With the measure, members of the downtown district would be taking control of their own destiny.

What opponents say: Five mills would increase the tax that the owner of a $250,000 house pays by $99.50 each year. The owner of a nonresidential property of the same value would see a $362.50 annual increase. Many taxpayers already are having trouble keeping up with their taxes, and this would increase the burden. The city of Loveland should find other ways to pay for any neglected maintenance and infrastructure upgrades in downtown.

Also, the measure’s exemption of revenue from taxing and spending limits violates the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 15

A MENDMENT 69 Amendment 69: ColoradoCare What it asks: “Shall state taxes be increased $25 billion annually in the first full fiscal year, and by such amounts that are raised thereafter, by an amendment to the Colorado Constitution establishing a health care payment system to fund health care for all individuals whose primary residence is in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, creating a governmental entity called ColoradoCare to administer the health care payment system; providing for the governance of ColoradoCare by an interim appointed board of trustees until an elected board of trustees takes responsibility; exempting ColoradoCare from the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights; assessing an initial tax on the total payroll from employers, payroll income from employees, and nonpayroll income at varying rates; increasing these tax rates when ColoradoCare begins making health care payments for beneficiaries; capping the total amount of income subject to taxation; authorizing the board to increase the taxes in specified circumstances upon approval of the members of ColoradoCare; requiring ColoradoCare to contract with health care providers to pay for specific health care benefits; transferring administration of the Medicaid and children’s basic health programs and all other state and federal health care funds for Colorado to ColoradoCare; transferring responsibility to ColoradoCare for medical care that would otherwise be paid for by workers’ compensation insurance; requiring ColoradoCare to apply for a waiver from the Affordable Care Act to establish a Colorado health care payment system; and suspending the operations of the Colorado health benefit exchange and transferring its resources to ColoradoCare?”

What it means: Colorado residents are being asked to approve a constitutional amendment to fund a universal health care system in the state via an additional 10 percent income tax, one-third to be paid by the employee and two-thirds to be paid by the employer. The tax is expected to generate about $25 billion annually.

What supporters say: The amendment will not only provide better

SPECIAL TO THE REPORTER-HERALD

Donna Young describes ColoradoCare — Amendment 69 — during an event earlier this year in the Florence Public Library. and more affordable, comprehensive health care for all residents, regardless of financial status, but it will save money in the long-run. Colorado spends about $30 billion annually on health care, and this

16 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

will cut spending by $4.5 billion a year.

What opponents say: Universal health care will reduce the quality of care for everyone, burden businesses with

additional taxes that will make them not want to locate in the state and leave health care decisions to politics and a board of trustees with little transparency to the public.

M INIMUM WAGE

DAVID R. JENNINGS / Staff Photographer

Skip Miller, right, a Colorado School of Mines facility management worker, leads workers and CU students to the Chancellor’s office last year to present over 1,000 signatures demanding a higher minimum wage for CU workers.

Amendment 70: Colorado minimum wage increase Amendment 70

employers must supplement their wages to match the minimum. If voters What it asks: “Shall there be an pass Amendment 70, the wage will amendment to the Colorado increase to $9.30 per hour Jan. 1, 2017. constitution increasing the minimum Each year after that, the rate will wage to $9.30 per hour with annual increases of $0.90 each January 1 until increase by 90 cents until it reaches $12 in January 2020. The minimum it reaches $12 per hour effective January 2020, and annually adjusting it wage then will be adjusted upward thereafter for cost-of-living increases?” each year based on the Consumer Price Index, if prices rise. It won’t go down if What it means: A minimum the CPI drops. amount that employers in Colorado can What supporters say: The state’s pay most workers was written into the minimum wage is too low to allow state constitution in 2006; it currently workers to support themselves at a stands at $8.31 an hour. Employees basic standard of living, and some rely who work for tips have a minimum on welfare to make ends meet. A wage of $3.02 less than the state minimum. If their tips don’t bring their person working full time at minimum pay up to the minimum wage, their wage makes $17,284.80 a year. The

minimum wage has increased 21 percent since the voter-approved rate went into effect in January 2007, but the cost of some critical products and services has risen at a faster rate. For example, the average rent for an apartment in a complex in Loveland was $847.21 during the first quarter of 2007. In the first quarter of this year, the average rent was $1,275.72, a 50.6 percent increase. Raising the minimum wage also could help businesses by improving employee productivity and morale and therefore reducing turnover.

What opponents say: Raising Colorado’s minimum wage would hurt the very people who are meant to be helped by the increase. If businesses are required to pay their employees

more, they could be forced to lay off workers, reduce their hours or cut benefits. Workers looking for minimumwage jobs would find their prospects diminished because companies wouldn’t be able to hire as many people as a result of the higher costs.

Also, businesses likely would pass on their increased expenses in the form of higher prices, which would hurt people at the lowest income levels. Businesses also would suffer, especially small, family-owned companies in rural areas.

In small-town Colorado, economic recovery hasn’t matched the resurgence of the cities, and businesses there aren’t as able to deal with higher costs, such as a mandated minimum wage increase.

VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 17

A MENDMENT 71

CLIFF GRASSMICK / Staff Photographer

Martha McPherson, left, has Peter Volz sign her fracking petition in July at the Boulder Farmers’ Market. The group, CREED, Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development, tried to get two initiatives related to fracking onto the ballot by was unsuccessful.

Colorado Amendment 71 Amendment 71 (Constitutional)

constitution?

What it does: The amendment would change the current requirement of the What it asks: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution amount of signatures required to place a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment making it more difficult to amend the on the ballot — 5 percent of the votes Colorado constitution by requiring that cast in the last secretary of state election any petition for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment be signed by at — to require that signatures must include 2 percent of the registered voters least two percent of the registered in each of the state’s 35 senate districts. It electors who reside in each state senate would also require that signatures be district for the amendment to be placed collected statewide. Additionally, it would on the ballot and increasing the constitutional amendments would need percentage of votes needed to pass any proposed constitutional amendment from 55 percent approval to pass, as opposed a majority to at least fifty-five percent of to the current 50 percent and one vote, unless it’s a repeal of a constitutional the votes cast, unless the proposed constitutional amendment only repeals, in amendment. That 55 percent approval whole or in part, any provision of the also applies to any constitutional 18 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

amendments lawmakers have referred to the ballot.

What supporters say: The law as it stands makes it too easy to change the state constitution, the state’s foundational document. And additional statutory changes, according to the “Blue Book” produced by the Colorado Legislative Council, will “allow the legislature to react when laws require clarification or when problems or unforeseen circumstances arise.”

The changes to the signature-gathering also give residents across the whole state a say in placing or not placing an amendment on the ballot, ensuring that rural residents get the same voice as those in urban areas.

What opponents say: Opponents of the measure say the proposed changes make it too difficult for residents to get a constitutional amendment onto the ballot and more costly. Signature gatherers would have to ensure signatures come from 35 different senate districts, and it would make it easier for larger districts that have more people who oppose a measure, to block it from even getting onto the ballot for a vote.

The “Blue Book” notes that the amendment “unduly restricts ballot access for average Coloradans, leaving an important democratic tool accessible only to those able to bear the higher costs associated with a complicated signaturegathering process.”

A MENDMENT 72

JENNY SPARKS / Loveland Reporter-Herald

Surveys show nearly one in six Coloradans (17 percent) smoke cigarettes. In Larimer County, about 14 percent of residents smoke. A ballot issue would increase the taxes on cigarettes substantially.

Colorado Amendment 72 improvements for qualified health providers, educational loan repayments for health professionals in rural and What it asks: underserved areas, and health Shall state taxes be increased $315.7 million annually by an amendment to the professional training tracks?

What it does: The proposed Colorado Constitution increasing tobacco amendment would raise taxes on taxes, and, in connection therewith, cigarettes by $1.75 (8.75 cents per beginning January 1, 2017, increasing cigarette) on a pack of 20 cigarettes and taxes on cigarettes by 8.75 cents per cigarette ($1.75 per pack of 20 cigarettes) by 22 percent of a manufacturer’s list price for all other tobacco products. It and on other tobacco products by 22 would take a portion of the revenue and percent of the manufacturer’s list price; allocatee it toward health and education and allocating specified percentages of programs. the new tobacco tax revenue to healthWhat supporters say: Proponents of related programs and tobacco education, the amendment say the measure will prevention, and cessation programs reduce smoking by discouraging the currently funded by existing purchase of tobacco prices because of the constitutional tobacco taxes; and also increased cost. The money will go toward allocating new revenue for tobaccoprograms that they say would be related health research, veterans’ programs, child and adolescent behavioral beneficial for the state’s residents, including a focus on smoking prevention. health, construction and technology

Amendment 72 (Constitutional)

According to the “Blue Book” provided to voters about the ballot issues, proponents point to the fact that consumption of cigarettes in the state fell by 12.6 percent when the taxes were last increased in 2005. Additionally, tobacco use is one of the leading causes for preventable diseases, including cancer, and results in about 5,1000 deaths in Colorado per year, proponents of the tax increase say.

The additional tax revenue produced from those who continue their smoking habits can go toward offsetting health care and research costs across the state as well as the burden tobacco use has on the state, according to proponents. They say the cost of tobacco use on the state, directly, is about $1.9 billion annually.

What opponents say: Opponents of the tax increase say the tax essentially triples the current tax on tobacco use,

leading to a $315.7 million increase. The funding will go toward programs that aren’t necessarily effective at reducing tobacco use and will lock the state to continue funding these programs, even after tobacco use has declined.

According to the “Blue Book,” opponents also point out that the tax will hurt low-income tobacco users, and individuals from low-income families tend to consume more tobacco products.

Plus, those same residents spend about 14 percent of their income on products as is and could potentially continue to pay more after taxes are increased because of the addiction factor. That, in turn, will lead to a even heavier financial burden on those families. “Low-income tobacco users who are unable to quit will subsidize programs that benefit nontobacco users, taking money out of already tight household budgets,” the “Blue Book” reads.

VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 19

P ROPOSITION 106 Colorado proposition 106 What it asks: “Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes to permit any mentally capable adult Colorado resident who has a medical prognosis of death by terminal illness within six months to receive a prescription from a willing licensed physician for medication that can be selfadministered to bring about death; and in connection therewith, requiring two licensed physicians to confirm the medical prognosis, that the terminally-ill patient has received information about other care and treatment options, and that the patient is making a voluntary and informed decision in requesting the medication; requiring evaluation by a licensed mental health professional if either physician believes the patient may not be mentally capable; granting immunity from civil and criminal liability and professional discipline to any person who in good faith assists in providing access to or is present when a patient selfadministers the medication; and establishing criminal penalties for persons who knowingly violate statutes relating to the request for the medication?”

What it means: The Colorado End-of Life Options Act authorizes the medical practice of aid in dying. Medical aid in dying allows a terminally ill, mentally capable person who has a prognosis of six months or less to live to request, obtain and, if the suffering becomes unbearable, selfadminister medication that brings about a peaceful death.

BRENNAN LINSLEY / AP

Tara Allgood, center, who lost her father the previous December to a brain tumor, cries as she listens to testimony from Melissa Brenkert, right, in favor of a bill sponsored by Colorado state Sen. Mike Merrifield, DColorado Springs, left, which would provide end-of-life options for terminally ill individuals. A legislative effort failed in the 2016 General Assembly, but supporters have put the issue onto the November ballot as Proposition 106.

What supporters say: Supporters say the act gives those who are dying and their families control over their health care decisions. They say it is a safe, kind and compassionate thing to do for people who are suffering in the last stages of terminal illness. They say those who are making the request already have been diagnosed and are

20 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

in the last stages of the terminal illness. The physicians do not force those suffering to take the medication, but they can have it available to be selfadministered as selfdetermined. They say having the medication gives them comfort. It gives them independence and autonomy up to the end.

What opponents say:

Opponents call the act physician-assisted suicide anything but “death with dignity.”

They say it is motivated by economic considerations as a way to end a life instead of providing healing medicines and techniques that could cost more.

They say all human life, including the lives of the

elderly, infirm and disabled, should be preserved and protected. They say depression and mental health reasons, not pain relief, can serve as motivators for physicianassisted suicide and that misdiagnosis and inaccurate prognosis can lead to faulty decisions. They are concerned that no medical personnel need be present when the medications are administered.

P ROPOSITIONS 107-108 Proposition 107 (statutory)

Proposition 108 (Statutory)

What it says: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes recreating a presidential primary election to be held before the end of March in each presidential election year in which unaffiliated electors may vote without declaring an affiliation with a political party?

What it means: If approved, Colorado would schedule a primary election to occur every four years in March to gauge support for the presidential candidates for each party and apportion delegates to the national conventions accordingly.

Unlike presidential primaries from previous years, unaffiliated voters — who make up more than one-third of the electorate in the state — would be allowed to participate in one of the elections. They would not be able to vote in both parties’ primaries. Currently, delegates are chosen through the caucus and assembly process. The election would be paid for by the state and the counties.

What supporters say: The primary election system would replace the caucus system for choosing presidential candidates. Under the caucus system, residents have to learn the inner working of the parties and can often have their voice drowned out by organized groups, according to Colorado Legislative Council writers. Caucuses would still exist; they would be held to conduct the party business, not choose presidential delegates. Supporters would be able to choose candidates by secret ballot instead of in a large group setting. Also, by opening it up to independent voters, it is more likely that a candidate would have to cater to their interests as well, perhaps favoring those toward the middle of the political spectrum.

What opponents say: Currently, caucuses are held at the expense of the political parties. By moving to a primary election, those costs would be borne by taxpayers at the county and state level. In addition, unaffiliated voters might have a bad effect on elections by choosing candidates who don’t represent the political parties or are the preferred choices of party members. Also, opponents note that unaffiliated voters may choose to affiliate with a party before the caucuses if they wish to have a voice about the candidates for office.

What it says: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the process of selecting candidates representing political parties on a general election ballot, and, in connection therewith, allowing an unaffiliated elector to vote in the primary election of a political party without declaring an affiliation with that party and permitting a political party in specific circumstances to select all of its candidates by assembly or convention instead of by primary election?

What it means: Currently, those unaffiliated voters who wish to vote in a party primary election for any level of government must register with that party. If approved, the measure would allow unaffiliated voters — the largest group of voters in Colorado — to retain their unaffiliated status yet still cast a ballot. In the second section of the measure, political parties would be allowed to opt out of having a primary election for offices and instead choose their candidates through the caucus and assembly system.

That would require unaffiliated voters to register with a party to take part in the selection process.

What supporters say: Because unaffiliated voters make up the largest number of voters in the state, allowing them to participate in the June primary elections would increase the level of participation in the elections and potentially spur candidates to seek their votes as well. The Colorado Legislative Council notes participation in the June primaries is often very low, with enthusiastic party members dominating the selection process. An open primary would change that.

What opponents say: Colorado Legislative Council members courted controversy when preparing the arguments against the measure, because they note that in the state of Washington where such open primaries exist, a large percentage of ballots are not able to be counted because of voter error. In addition, party officials say an open primary system could prompt independent voters to choose a party’s nominee who does not adhere to the beliefs of the party he or she would represent. Also, current state law allows unaffiliated voters to choose a political party the day of the primary election — and then leave the party the next day if so desired.

VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 21

A MENDMENT T /A MENDMENT U Amendment T (Constitutional) Amendment T (Constitutional) What it asks: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning the removal of the exception to the prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude when used as punishment for persons duly convicted of a crime?

What it does: This provision was referred to the voters in Colorado by the General Assembly — who voted unanimously in both chambers to support the change. In a nutshell, it would remove a section of the Colorado Constitution that currently states that slavery or involuntary servitude is prohibited in Colorado unless it is a punishment upon the conviction of a crime.

What supporters say: The biggest issue facing legislators when it was considered was whether the removal would have an effect on

current types of court-ordered work or jail practices. Such programs as community service and jobs in prison might have been considered to fall under the auspices of this section of the constitution, but court rulings have upheld that they are not considered “slavery” or “indentured servitude” under constitutional guidelines.

According to the “Blue Book” produced by the Colorado Legislative Council, 25 other states have stricken such slavery language from their state constitutions have not had their community service or prison jail programs successfully challenged.

Supporters then note that with the community service programs still legal, references to slavery in the state constitution are outmoded and outdated and should be removed.

At a rally in front of the State Capitol when the campaign for the amendment was kicked off, legislators from both parties extolled the need

for passage.

What opponents say: Opponents of the measure note that while current legal rulings allow such programs as community service and work in prison, that does not guarantee future courts would rule the same way. If that were to be the case, community service sentences might be eliminated as an option, thus forcing judges to consider other punishments such as increased fines or more jail time. If the community service component to justice was removed, nonprofit agencies and local governments would not have the labor necessary to perform some of their functions.

In addition, some opponents say the constitution is a historic document that includes many vestiges of previous times in the state.

Removing portions would eliminate some of the historic context from the state’s past.

Amendment U (Constitutional) Amendment U (Constitutional)

interest means that a person or company uses government-owned property in the process of What it says: Shall there be an amendment their work, such as a rancher who uses forest to the Colorado Constitution concerning an lands for grazing, a farmer who leases state land exemption from property taxation for a for growing crops or ski area operators who use possessory interest in real property if the actual high mountain peaks to house their ski areas.

For many of those landowners, the possessory value of the interest is less than or equal to six interest claim on which they have to pay taxes is thousand dollars or such amount adjusted for very small — less than $25, according to state inflation? figures. About 7,000 entities pay possessory What it means: This amendment has to do interest property tax, and the amendment would with “possessory interest” in property, which is exempt about 5,100 of them. different from the traditional property ownership What supporters say: For those 5,100 entities that pay possessory interest property tax, for most residential and commercial property the cost of creating and administering the owners in the state. To have a possessory

22 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE

property tax notices, billing and collections exceeds the taxes being generated by the users.

According to the Colorado Legislative Council, the tax generates $125,000 statewide across all taxing districts in the state; no figures are available on how much it costs to administer it across all districts.

What opponents say: Even if it is a small amount, this is a private benefit being given to users of public property — which is already a benefit not available to everybody in the state.

According to the Colorado Legislative Council, other taxpayers would have to make up the difference or see services reduced, even if slightly, because of the exemption.

CU R EGENT At-Large CU Regent Democratic candidate Alice Madden Name: Alice Madden Website: madden4CU.com Age: 58 Family: Married to Pete Madden; two adult children Professional background: nine year practice before working as director of alumni relations for the CU law school. Served in Colorado House; now works as executive director of the GetchesWilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment at the University of Colorado’s law school.

Political/community experience: Elected to Colorado House of Representatives in 2000; served as House majority leader 2004-2008; served as deputy chief of staff to Gov. Bill Ritter in 2009.

Education: Bachelor’s degree, CU; Juris Doctor, CU; 1. How would you make college education more affordable in Colorado?

It is time to take action to curb the backbreaking debt that continues to burden those who are seeking a quality education, and ensure CU is operated efficiently and in the best interest of our students, form diverse collaborations to

Madden safety? support increasing state funding for in-state Every student needs to be safe on every students, build a robust level of scholarships and campus. Disturbing reports about sexual assaults expand affordable financial aid options for need to be addressed to ensure CU can be a topstudents. tier university system.

2. What are your thoughts on campus

At-Large CU Regent Republican candidate Heidi Ganahl Name: Heidi Ganahl Website: HeidiGahahl.com Age: 50 Family: Husband, Jason; four children Professional background: Founder of Camp Bow Wow, a pet care company that went from a single location in 2000 to now being a franchise with more than 200 locations nationwide.

Political/community experience: In 2015, launched the nonprofit Moms Fight Back.

Additionally, she serves on several nonprofit boards focused on education, entrepreneurship, and school safety, including as a director at the University of Colorado Foundation Education: Bachelor’s degree, CU; some post-graduate work.

1. How would you make college education more affordable in Colorado?

I’ll work to hard make sure higher education is affordable. Any student that wants to attend college should have the ability to do so, without racking up huge student loan debt.

I’ll bring my experience as a successful entrepreneur to CU to drive down costs, develop more innovative sources of funding (because state funding is not likely to increase) and improve the quality of education.

2. What are your thoughts on campus safety?

I’ll work hard to keep our students safe. School shootings, substance abuse, depression and campus sexual assault are just some of the things I plan to work tirelessly to stop. We need to take a much stronger lead in preventing these threats. Many campus issues go unaddressed, or are handled improperly. We cannot let fear deter our students from getting the most out of their educational opportunities. Campus safety is paramount.

Ganahl VOTER GUIDE • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • 23

24 • OCTOBER 2, 2016 • VOTER GUIDE