4 - Capital Investment Stratey Study Session Follow-up
Original Message
Subject:Re: FW: Capital Investment Strategy Study Session Follow-up
Date:Tue, 01 Mar 2011 13:18:07 -0700
From:Matt McMullen <mattm &ucar.edu>
Reply-To:m attm(a),ucar.edu
Organization:UCAR
To:Brautigam Jane <Brauti2amJ(wbouldei•colorado.gov>, matt
mcmullen <mattm(u)ucar.edu>
Jane:
Thanks for contacting the DMC. We have our next meeting on
Monday night, 3/7/11 at 5:30PM in the Council Chambers.
We'll include a discussion to respond to your request for
input on potential participants in the stakeholder
committee.
Hope all is well with you!
Matt
On 3/1/2011 1:07 PM, Brautigam, Jane wrote:
Dear Downtown Management Commission,
On February 22, the Council study session focused on
potential capital investment strategies and ballot issues.
The study session material may be accessed through the
following link:
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/City%20Council/Study%2
OSessions/2011/2011SS/02 22 2011 SS/Feb 22 SS memo.pdf
During the discussion, City Council acknowledged the need
to identify funding for investment in critical deficiencies
of the city's existing assets, facilities and
infrastructure. Council also supported utilizing potential
revenue and/or bonding approaches for a November ballot.
Council supported the concept of a stakeholder committee
process to develop potential revenue and/or bonding
approaches. This committee may include Board and Commission
representation and is tentatively scheduled to begin in
April 2011.
2 will be seeking volunteers for the stakeholder committee
and appreciate your input on potential participants who
understand the need for a capital bond initiative and who
are able to represent citywide demographics and interests.
Additional details about the stakeholder committee and
formal solicitation for participants will be forthcoming in
the near future.
Regards,
Jane S. Brautigam
City Manager
Boulder City Council
STUDY SESSION
February 22, 2011
6:30to9PM
Capital Investment Strategy
. and
Potential Ballot Issue(s)
Municipal Building
City Council Chambers
1777 Broadway
Submit Written Comments to City Council
ATTN: Alisa Lewis, City Clerk
1777 Broadway, 2"d Floor
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
or Fax to 303-441-4478
or E-mail: council@bouldercolorado.gov
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Jane Brautigam, City Manager
Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Officer
Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Chris Meschuk, Planner II
Abbie Poniatowski, Budget and Finance Manager for Parks and Recreation
Scott Collins, Assistant to the City Manager
DATE: February 15, 2011
SUBJECT: Capital Investment Strategy and Potential Ballot Issue(s)
I.PURPOSE
The purpose of this study session is to present and discuss the development of a capital
investment strategy with existing revenues and potentially new revenues, both of which may
require voter approval. Staff requests council feedback to continue to make progress on the city's
capacity to invest in capital improvements.
In the last decade, the city has made significant progress in stabilizing revenues, achieving
expenditure efficiencies and prioritizing, reallocating and reducing services and programs. Given
the foundation of ongoing efficiencies and reductions, staff is asking council if it is the appropriate
time to consider devoting existing funds and/or pursuing new revenue to invest in community
assets and enhancements. This consideration could involve developing potential new revenue
and/or bonding package(s) for voter approval. The concept is to begin restoring the city's ability
to proactively invest in community facilities and amenities, such as park development, library
enhancements, multimodal connections, improved recreation centers and pools, and other city
facilities.
Council's consideration includes evaluating potential ballot timing and approach to increase the
city's capacity to invest in existing critical deficiencies and to build and sustain new community
investments. This study session is not all inclusive of potential ballot items for the 2011 and/or
2012 elections; however, several revenue-related ballot items are addressed at least in part.
Future council meetings focusing on the full spectrum of potential ballot issues are scheduled for
July and August, which will include Boulder's Energy Options.
II. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Does Council have any clarifying questions regarding the capital improvement
needs and different approaches to funding such improvements?
2. Does Council endorse the idea of committing to a community capital investment
strategy from ongoing, existing funding of approximately $5.OM in General Fund
money?
3. Does Council endorse the policy of focusing on funding critical deficiencies for
existing assets/facilities first and higher priority new facilities/assets second?
4. Does Council support the concept of a stakeholder committee process which
would create potential revenue and/or bonding approaches to be taken to the
voters in November 2012?
III. BACKGROUND
The provision of adequate urban facilities and services to support the community's quality of life is
a core tenet of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Improvements Program is a
major tool to coordinate and target public capital expenditures within budget constraints. The
goal is to maintain, and in some cases enhance, service levels and standards over time, and with
new growth required to pay an equitable share of the costs.
1
The city has a rich history of investing in the community and its quality of life, and prior to the
2000's, the community consistently invested significant resources in capital facilities. Funding was
provided through a combination of ballot measures for specific facilities and land purchases,
federal funds, and the city's annual budget. Examples of investments include:
• buying park lands and open space;
• providing and upgrading public facilities such as libraries, recreation centers and sports
fields;
• building places for community business and services such as the municipal campus
buildings and operations centers such as the "Yards"; and
• building multimodal community connections such as the Greenways system, bikeways,
and intersection improvements.
The city also has invested to help create special places like the Pearl Street Mall and Chautauqua
area. Today, community members and visitors continue to benefit from these many facilities and
lands on a regular basis.
The 2000's, by contrast, were difficult locally, regionally, nationally and even globally. The cost of
delivering services and taking care of our systems has increased dramatically. Global demand
has resulted in the cost of energy and construction costs far out-pacing the consumer price index.
While there has been some relief in material costs recently, there is no sign that there will be a
return to historic levels. At the same time, there have been two economic declines, increased
regional competition and cultural change in shopping habits impacting the revenue side of the
equation. The city's revenue in absolute dollars has not returned to where it was in 2000.
Furthermore, the purchasing power of current funding is significantly less than 2000 as is
illustrated in the "Impact of Inflation" chart. In previous budget discussions, council has discussed
that this condition is not temporary and reflects a "new normal" for the city.
Sales/Use Tax - Impact of Inflation
$85,000
$80,787 $80,668 $80,850 $81.433
$80,000 $78,713
576,274 $80,933
$78,939
$75,000 572,982
$71,327
$70,000 $71,715 567,608 $68.289
$65,000 \
$63,510
$60,000 -
5591373 559,896 562.290 $61,957 S59,732 $64,692 $58,587
$55,000 $57,144
$50,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010
--H Actual Collected -9-- Adjusted for inflation Orig. Re v.
The city began to evaluate structural issues related to its revenue portfolio and understanding the
growing gap between expenditures and revenues. The following steps were taken during the
2000's to help understand and stabilize the city's financial position.
External and Internal review of revenues and expenditures:
• External review: Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) I focused on revenue stabilization (2006 to
2008) and BRC II focused on expenditure efficiencies (2009 to 2010). A link to the BRC I and
II work follows:
htto:llwww.bouldercolorado.cov/index.php?oation=com content&view=article&id=5925<emi
d=2421
2
• Internal review: Business Plan creation which transitioned to Priority-Based Budgeting (PBB),
an ongoing disciplined approach to prioritizing investments (2006 to present). A link to PBB
follows:
htta://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index_r)hp?or)tion=com content&view=article&id=12883<e
mid=4403
Recent Expenditure Stabilization Steps:
• Implemented ongoing budget reductions totaling $5 million in the 2010 Approved Budget and
$1 million in the 2011 Approved Budget.
• Updated employee compensation strategy to further focus on pay-for-performance and
market competitiveness.
• Moved to a single health care provider for city employee health care plans.
• Renewed emphasis on a Wellness program designed to pro-actively encourage employees
to identify any specific health risk factors eventually lowering healthcare costs.
• Ongoing department-by-department and cross-departmental efficiency analyses and
implementation.
Revenue Stabilization Steps:
• De-brucing property tax - November 2008
• Sales tax extensions - November 2008 and 2009
• Accommodations tax increase - November 2010
• Strengthening the Economic Vitality program - 2008 - 2011
Even with stabilization efforts, there have been significant cuts to programming, staffing,
operations and maintenance and infrastructure investment. While some of these reductions can
be associated with improved efficiency, most represent absolute reductions in service levels to
the community.
Prior to budget cuts, the city was able to keep up more consistently with industry standards in
taking care of its assets whether it was roadway repair and reconstruction, building maintenance,
parks and sports field maintenance, or replacement of business and software systems. Today,
without additional levels of investment community assets will be in a steady state of decline. For
example, street pavement condition will continue to decline without a sustainable increase in
funding. As noted in an information packet from September 1, 2010, it would take an additional
$1.6 million per year to maintain current average pavement condition.
http:/IuAm, v.bouldercolorado.cov/files/Citv°fo20Council/WIPS/2010/IP 09 01 2010/2B.pdf
In addition, there are neighborhood park lands that do not have park development dollars, there
are multimodal transportation connections that need to be improved, and there are desires for
enhanced and/or expanded purpose-built amenities such as library facilities. Even if those assets
were built with one-time money, there are insufficient funds to operate and maintain them over
time, putting ever increasing pressure on maintenance and operation funds for existing facilities.
The city's ability to adequately maintain city facilities has also been impacted by available
financial resources and rising costs. While the city has successfully leveraged funds through
grants to enhance facilities or upgrade energy efficiency in buildings and facilities, these are one
time opportunities which face greater competition and declining funds.
The following sections of the memo outline capital improvement needs for the city and options
funding those needs. This item is intended to be a high-level policy discussion for council to
begin setting a future course in which the city once again invests proactively in community assets.
3
IV. Analysis
The analysis provided for this study session includes:
A. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - Needs
B. Ongoing and Maintenance Funds for Existing and New Facilities
C. Capital Improvement Program - Revenue (Existing and New)
D. Additional Capital Investment and Bonding Capacity Based on Incremental Revenue
Increases
E. Boulder's Regional Position Related to Sales and Use Tax
F. Lessons Learned from Other Communities
G. Potential Process Approaches and Timelines
A. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - Needs
The CIP is the key implementation tool for our community infrastructure. As described above, the
majority of the CIP is being implemented through the fiscally constrained plans of the
departments. Currently, the CIP is funded at approximately $20-25 million dollars per year. The
six-year CIP is developed annually, with the first year considered for approval along with the
operating budget, and the remaining five years as a planning tool. In 2010, the city undertook
significant efforts to make the CIP more accessible, understandable, and expanded to include all
"capital expenses".
These improvements will continue, with the most significant change being a more direct linkage
and coordination with the budget development by the finance department. In addition, the guiding
principles developed concurrently with last year's CIP will begin to be used for the development of
the coming year CIP projects. See AttachmentA for the CIP Guiding Principles adopted as a
part of the 2011 Budget.
As departments develop their CIP lists for the city's fiscally constrained budget there are a
number of projects that end up on "unfunded" project lists. These unfunded projects range from
critical deficiencies in the city's existing infrastructure and facilities to high priority enhancements
based on adopted master plans to desirable, but lower priority enhancements, also based on
master plans. To help illustrate the order of magnitude of the costs of these types of unfunded
projects, departments recently were asked to submit their best current estimate of projects by
category as reflected in the table shown below:
Capital Project Cate o Total Cost Funded Unfunded Cost
Critical Deficiency $ 78,500,000 $13,100,000 $ 65,400,000
Higher Priority Action Plan $135,400.000 $10,800.000 $ 124.600,000
Lower Priority Action Plan $370,400,000 $ 900,000 $ 369,500,000
Vision Plan $142,000,000 $ 100,000 $ 141,900,000
Total $726,300,000 $24,900,000 $ 701,400,000
A summary of capital needs across the organization with examples of project types follows:
A. 1 CIP - Critical Deficiencies
Based on an initial evaluation by city departments, $65 million dollars will be required to fund all
current "critical deficiencies" related to city infrastructure needs (transportation, parks and
facilities). The term "critical deficiency" has been defined based on maintaining industry accepted
standards, health and safety issues and/or legal/ballot requirements related to capital
construction (e.g., Fire Training Center).
4
By prioritizing adequate maintenance of existing assets, the city will avoid the increased costs
associated with deferred maintenance. Examples of critical deficiencies are provided to give
council a sense of these types of investments:
Bridge Replacement ($3,000,0_00) - Replacing bridges serves safety and mobility needs, the
highest priorities in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). As an example, the bridge on 63rd
just north of Arapahoe is now the lowest rated bridge in the city's system, with a rating of
structurally deficient. This bridge has very narrow lanes and no shoulders. There are also
minor structures (less than 20' long) throughout the city that are in need of structural repair.
Neighborhood, Pocket Parks & Community Park Renovations ($8.150.000) - Under funded
park renovation and park facility projects will continue to impact the growing backlog of park
renovation project needs and staff resources in the department. As the backlog of park
renovation projects increase, the expectations of the community to meet required federal
ADA compliance standards and address the number of unsafe and/or outdated play
equipment areas throughout the city will continue.
Reconstruct Damaged Streets ($7,000,000) - Staff estimates this level of investment is
needed to reconstruct the roads in the community that are in the worst condition. These
streets have deteriorated to a point at which resurfacing is no longer an option. This is in
addition to the $1.6 million needed annually to maintain the entire system at a rating of 78 on
a scale of 100.
Police Technology Needs ($225,000) - The Police Department is currently well behind the
trend in having in-car video systems for all patrol cars. This is the new industry standard and
best practice, yet the city has just started to equip some of the patrol cars through limited
grant funds. In order to equip all patrol cars, additional funding is required.
A. 2 CIP - Action Plan Investments - Higher Priority
The evaluation of CIP needs also includes action plan items reflected in departmental master and
strategic plans. Action plan items generally require new or increased funding sources or the
implementation of a significant reallocation. These types of investments would entail a new and /
or expanded facility.
Due to the magnitude of identified funding needs, Action Plan items have been classified as
either higher or lower priority projects. The initial listing of unfunded higher priority action plan
items total $125 million. Examples of these types of investments include:
Facilities/Fire Station #3 Relocation ($6,000,000) - This 47-year-old building is located in the
100-year floodplain of Boulder Creek. Fire station 3 is the city's busiest station and is too
small to accommodate current service demands. The city does not have the ability to
renovate and expand this building due to its location.
Information Technology (IT) Critical Software ($3,000,000) - More than any other IT
investment area, business software directly and visibly supports the City's ability to perform
daily operations. IT CIP projects implement software automation to streamline business
processes, enhance city operations and mitigate risk. For example, BFS and Vista (the
finance and human resources/payroll products, respectively) are heavily customized, more
than 10 years old, and have uncertain product futures. As a result, the City risks the loss of
vendor support for these critical systems and could potentially incur a major, unplanned
replacement expense.
Main Library improvements ($2,500,000) - Move children's area to second floor and combine
with teen reading area; create adult reading areas. This upgrade is the top priority for the
Boulder Library Commission.
5
Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) has several projects currently classified as "High Priority"
which, in time will move to "Critical Deficiency" status due to increasingly expensive annual repair
and maintenance costs. These include:
Scott Carpenter Pool ($1.500,000) - Construct new pool. Current Pool is within the 100-year
flood plain.
Facilities Parking Lot Repair ($450.000) - repair asphalt parking lots at city facilities to correct
tripping hazards (e.g., fire stations, main library: south parking lot, recreation centers).
Public Safety Building ($200,000) - Replace 3 HVAC units.
South Boulder Recreation Center ($100,000) - Replace water damaged wooden gym floor
and racquetball floors.
Public safety Building ($50,000) - Replace aging freight elevator.
A. 3 CIP - Action and Vision Plan Investments - Lower Priority
The evaluation of CIP needs also includes action plan items reflected in departmental master and
strategic plans. Action plan items generally include enhanced or new city facilities and require
new or increased funding sources or the implementation of a significant reallocation.
Due to the magnitude of identified funding needs, Action Plan items have been classified as
either higher or lower priority projects. The initial listing of unfunded lower priority action plan
items total $370 million, These investments may not be time critical or may not be in an initial set
of strategic investments. Examples include:
• Park operations - Relocation / renovation / expansion of the Yards maintenance facilities
• Park Development - Construct neighborhood and pocket parks (e.g., Mesa Memorial,
Gunbarrel, Violet)
• Fire Department - Renovate/replace fire stations
• Foothills Community Park - Phase III Improvements
• Transportation - Enhancements and connections associated with Northwest Rail (unless
there are significant changes to FasTracks timing)
• Library- Construct North Boulder Branch Library
• Police - DNA Lab
B. Ongoing Operating and Maintenance Funds for Existing and New Facilities
An important consideration for any new investments is to assure that ongoing Operations and
Maintenance funding is included to catch up on current deficiencies as well as to support new
facilities. For example, a new library would need ongoing funds to support sufficient personnel for
service delivery and operation of the building as well as building maintenance needs. Additions
to the Transportation system would not require as much personnel, but likely would require
greater ongoing non-personnel funds to assure that the new infrastructure could be well
maintained. The City of Fort Collins learned this lesson when it passed tax increases for new
investments that did not provide sufficiently for ongoing operations and maintenance. Ft. Collins
was forced to make budget cuts to other areas to be able to fund new facility operations.
New revenue sources would grow each year (except during recessions) and that growth in
revenue could be used to help cover some portion of increased operating costs. However, given
the ongoing need to catch up and stay current with existing capital renovation and operations and
maintenance, more analysis is needed to determine the need and use of potential ongoing
funding.
C. Capital Improvement Program - Revenue (Existing and New)
There are different approaches to investing in capital projects, capital renovations or major capital
replacements/maintenance. Organizations can use pay-as-you go approaches or debt or lease-
based financing with a commitment linked to particular revenue streams. Pay-as-you-go funding
entails accumulating cash overtime and investing in specific projects once sufficient dollars are
6
set aside. The ongoing revenues can come from current or new revenues. While pay-as-you-go
funding can be used for any type of project, it is often used for smaller capital projects that can be
completed in a short period of time so they are not subject to major changes in cost due to
inflation.
Debt or lease financing consists of borrowing a lump sum dollar amount and paying it back over
time with payments each year from either current revenues or new revenues authorized by the
voters. This form of financing is often used for projects that are large, have a significant cost and
have a life expectancy that is equal to or longer than the final maturity of the ongoing payments.
Over recent years certain restricted funds have pursued bonding to build capital projects,
renovations or purchase property, such as through Public Works Utilities or Open Space, since
they have had more capacity in their funds and their investments meet the above guidelines. The
General Fund and other restricted funds, such as the Transportation Fund, have not had the
capacity in ongoing funding streams to pursue such investment approaches. The only capacity
the Transportation Fund has for more significant capital improvements is through leveraging
limited local dollars with federal and state grants, which are competitive and largely restricted to
particular types of investments.
Public - private partnerships are another tool that can be used in many different ways and for
many different types of projects. The basic arrangement is based on the city entering into a
contract with a private party. The private party would provide/build a capital project and the city
would use that project or facility based on some type of financial arrangement with the private
party. Some of these types of arrangements have been used very successfully by local
governments and some have not been successful. Each proposal must be carefully analyzed
and contemplated.
Under the city's current fiscally constrained environment, the city has the opportunity to continue
to pay-as-you-go with limited and gradual investments overtime to address critical deficiencies,
or to pursue a limited bonding approach based on a modest amount of additional ongoing
funding. The city could also expand its ongoing funding stream by taking a revenue increase to
the voters which could be used for both ongoing operations and maintenance and major capital
investments benefiting the community.
Capital Investment Opportunities with Existing Funding Stream:
The city has an opportunity to create a capital investment strategy by setting aside existing,
uncommitted General Funding streams. Based on the Accommodations Tax increase, retired
bonds, de-Bruced property tax and health care cost savings, the city could program investments
for critical deficiencies and action plan investments based on adopted master plans. The
capacity created by those funding sources is as follows:
Proposed Capital Investment Strate
Current Revenue Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Accommodations Tax $480,000 $ 480,000 $ 480,000 $ 480,000 $ 480,000 $ 480,000
Reallocate Paid-off Bond Payment
for Library Expansion $1,080,000 $1,080,000 $1,080,000 $1,080,000 $1,080,000
Reallocate Paid-off .15 Cent Bond
Payment (General Facilities &
Ballfieids) $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000
Reallocate Paid-off East Boulder
Community Center Debt Payment $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000
De-Bruced Property Tax - 2012 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000
De-Bruced Property Tax - 2013 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000
De-Bruced Property Tax - 2014 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000
Budget Savings resulting from
health care changes $500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Total $980,000 $2,760,000 $4,610,000 $5,010,000 $5,010,000 $5,010,000
7
While staff is pleased about health care savings, it would be prudent to be conservative regarding
these savings as future health care costs are difficult to predict. Available funding associated with
de-Bruced property taxes may change based on economic conditions. The city could pursue
using these funds based on the following models:
• Pay-as-you-go: Devote $4.5M to $5.OM annually to capital investment
• Bonding based on revenue stream: Create upfront larger investment potential by issuing
bonds to be repaid by a $4.5M to $5.OM annual revenue stream
• Combined Approach: Devote a portion of the annual revenue stream to capital investments
and issue bonds based on the remaining portion.
Through the capacity created by these funds and depending on what type of bond is issued, the
following table illustrates the estimated proceeds that could be realized for capital improvement
program purposes. If a Certificate of Participation lease is used, the proceeds would be less:
Example Scenarios for Bondin Capital Improvements
Term & Bond T e* $2.5M per year MOM per year
10-vr General Obliaation Bond $19 million $38 million
10- r Revenue Bond $17 million $34 million
20- r General Obligation Bond $31 million $62 million
20- r Revenue Bond $28.5 million $57 million
. Bonding authority requires voter approval.
Regardless of the chosen approach staff proposes that capital improvements and critical
deficiencies be considered across the organization rather than by department. A capital
improvement program fund would be created and would be used for CIP projects across the
organization. The projects would not be accounted for in individual funds. If a project comes in
under budget, the dollars would go back to the CIP fund and would fund the next project on the
priority list, which may be in a different department.
1. Does Council have any clarifying questions regarding the capital improvement
needs and different approaches to funding such improvements?
2. Does Council endorse the idea of committing to a community capital investment
strategy from ongoing, existing funding of approximately $5.OM in General Fund
money?
3. Does Council endorse the policy of focusing on funding critical deficiencies for
existing assets/facilities first and higher priority new facilities/assets second?
Proposed Capital Investment Strategy with Current Revenues:
• To begin repositioning Boulder to better invest in its physical and business infrastructure,
staff recommends that current, unallocated revenues be targeted for a capital investment
strategy.
• Based upon the good business practices of taking adequate care of existing assets, staff
recommends prioritizing critical deficiencies first and high priority action plan items
second.
D. Additional Capital Investment and Bonding Capacity Based on Incremental
Revenue Increases
Council may want to consider asking the voters to increase city revenues to address critical
deficiencies, invest in community assets, and assure that sufficient ongoing operation and
maintenance funding is available to support new/expanded facilities. To give Council a sense of
magnitude for new dollars by increment, each 0.1 % increase in sales and use tax or 1 mill
increase in property tax generates approximately $2.5 million per year. Similar to our fiscally
constrained potential, the city could leverage this new funding stream by borrowing to complete
up to $31 million of projects for each incremental increase of 0.1 % of sales and use tax or 1 mill
8
increase in property tax. The city could consider asking voters to approve an additional
increment of increase to property and / or sales tax as well as bonding authority.
The city could pursue different approaches for revenue and bonding capacity increases. One
approach would be a citywide fund, as noted above, with projects identified and prioritized from
across departments going through a single CIP fund. Another approach, used by the City and
County of Denver, would be to associate each increment of increase to a specific department or
project type. For example, voters could support individual increments for library expansions,
transportation connections, park land development, etc,
E. Boulder's Regional Position Related to Sales and Use Tax
As the city evaluates potential new funding sources it will need to consider other possible local,
regional and state ballot items (Attachment B - Summary of Potential Ballot Items for 2011 &
2012) and the city's competitive position in the region. For example, if new sales and use tax or
mill levy increments are considered, the city will want to compare total sales and use tax and/or
property tax levels to neighboring communities and regional competitors. The following table
represents Boulder's current position among front-range communities as it related to sales and
use tax rates. This table does not reflect the different types or values placed on investments,
such as open space; however, there appears to be some capacity for Boulder to increase its
rates and still remain comparable to other communities.
SALES TAX RATES
Total
City/County city Count State Regional Rate
Lakewood/J efferson,Creekside 4.5000 A 0.50 2.90 1.20 9.1000
Lakewood/Jefferson, Colorado Mills 4.4000 B 0.50 2.90 1.20 9.0000
Aurora/Douglas 3.7500 1.00 2.90 1.20 8.8500
Westminster/Adams 3.8500 0.75 2.90 1.20 8.7000
Aurora/Adams 3.7500 0.75 2.90 1.20 8.6000
Thornton/Adams 3.7500 0.75 2.90 1.20 8.6000
Westminster/Jefferson 3.8500 0.50 2.90 1.20 8.4500
City/County Broom field-Fiatirons 4.3500 C 2.90 1.20 8.4500
Lafayette/Boulder 3.5000 0.80 2.90 1.20 8.4000
Louisville/Boulder 3.5000 0.80 2.90 1.20 8.4000
Superior/Boulder 3.4600 0.80 2.90 1.20 8.3600
Boulder/Boulder 3.4100 0.80 2.90 1.20 8.3100
Arvada/Adams 3.4600 0.75 2.90 1.20 8.3100
City/County of Broomfield 4.1500 2.90 1.20 8.2500
Longmont/Boulder 3.2750 0.80 2.90 1.20 8.1750
Aurora/Arapahoe 3.7500 0.25 2.90 1.20 8.1000
Lakewood/Jefferson, Belmar 3.5000 D 0.50 2.90 1.20 8.1000
Arvada/Jefferson 3.4600 0.50 2.90 1.20 8.0600
City/County Denver 3.6200 2.90 1.20 7.7200
Lakewood/Jefferson (Other Areas) 3.0000 0.50 2.90 1.20 7.6000
Ft. Collins/Larimer 3.8500 0.80 2.90 7.5500
Average 3.7207 0.67 8.3374
A-Rate includes 3.0% City of Lakewood and 1.5% PIF (Public Improvement Fee)
B-Rate includes 3.0% City of Lakewood and 1.4% PIF
C-Includes 4.15% City/County of Broomfield and .2% Flatiron and Artista Improvement District
D-Rate includes 1.0% (reduced rate) City of Lakewood and 2.5% PIF
9
F. Lessons Learned from Other Communities
Staff has been researching efforts in neighboring local governments and has prepared a white
paper from which much can be learned.
The City and County of Denver was successful in passing the 2007 Better Denver Bond ballot
initiatives ($550 million additional bonding authority) based upon their internal work in vetting
projects and their public stakeholder process. By vetting projects internally for scope, costs,
ongoing expenditures and shovel readiness, the city was able to narrow the project list down to a
manageable size that addressed their true capital needs. The city then utilized an extensive
public stakeholder process to prioritize projects and develop resonating themes, ensuring public
support for the final project list.
The City of Fort Collins' successfully extended two .25 sales and use taxes in 1997 and again in
2005 to fund a wide array of CIP projects. As with Denver, the City of Ft. Collins thoroughly
vetted proposed projects internally, prior to engaging in multiple citizen outreach efforts to gauge
and gain public support for the measures.
Finally, Boulder County has incrementally increased its property and sales and use tax over the
past 10 years to address both operating and CIP needs. Though each increase was specific to
one department (i.e. Open Space, Transportation, Human Services), the lesson of conducting
polling, surveys and outreach to the community's thought leaders can be useful for the City of
Boulder in constructing a public engagement process.
Key lessons derived from the research should be considered in determining the proper mix of
projects and public process for the city:
1. Thorough vetting of needs and projects
• Conduct a needs assessment that considers industry standards (ex: Pavement Condition
Index for city roads)
• Vet projects - scoping, costing, shovel readiness, and include ongoing operating &
maintenance costs
• External validation (consultant) of project elements, providing objectivity
• Internal culling of projects through clear criteria, creating a reasonably sized and priced
list of projects
• Thorough vetting is critical prior to engaging in a public process
2. Public process to determine list/options
• Recommend a committee approach for a large CIP ballot item, one that engages
community leaders and has diverse community representation (in terms of socio-
economic, geographic, age, etc.)
• Set expectation early with public committee that it makes recommendations to city
manager and city council with council making final decisions
• Provide committee / subcommittees with thorough and well organized information such
as notebooks with projects, staff presentations on projects and project types, and criteria
to prioritize projects
3. Importance of including ongoing operations and maintenance in new funding and investment
packages.
Please see Attachment D for an overview of Denver, Fort Collins and Boulder County's recent
tax ballot initiatives.
G. Potential Process Approaches and Timelines
A fiscally constrained approach using current revenues will occur through the regular CIP budget
process, will employ the CIP Guiding Principles endorsed through the 2011 budget, and will be
vetted through the city's regular CIP process.
10
Two options are outlined below for moving forward with a ballot measure for increased funding for
a package of citywide capital improvement projects. The first option is an abbreviated process in
order to place an item on the ballot this fall. The second option outlines a more deliberative
process to place an item on the ballot in November 2012.
There will need to be budget and staffing assigned to this project once direction is established. A
project manager, external management and facilitation services, meeting support, polling and /or
focus groups will need financial and staff support. It is possible if all elements are included that
the project could cost up to $150,000 to $200,000.
November 2011 Community Improvement vote
This process would be similar to Boulder County's model of primarily relying on polling to
assess public opinion and to formulate a ballot issue, using a limited public process.
Feb 22: Council discussion
March: Council direction
Internal review of project list
Initial Polling on public's priorities
City Manager appoints task force
April-May:
Stakeholder process based on existing information on projects; 2-4
meetings
Stakeholder group would discuss prioritization, package options, level of
funding,
Polling on options and funding in May prior to recommendation to
Council
Mid-June: Recommendation to Council
July/August: 15t/2 "d Reading of Ballot Language
2012 Ballot Item Process
This process would be more in line with the model used in Fort Collins and Denver, where
significant time is devoted to vetting the list of projects and using a broadly comprised
stakeholder group to develop the package of projects. If council chooses this timeline, staff
would return with a more thorough process description and structure for council
consideration.
Feb 22: Council discussion
March: Design process including:
• Project workplan including schedule, tasks
• Stakeholder group: scope, role, potential members
• Project vetting process including external validation
April-May: Council direction
Internal project vetting
City Manager appoints task force members
Initial polling on public's priorities
June-Dec 2011: Stakeholder Process:
• Develop criteria and prioritize list of projects
• Evaluate funding options
Jan-May 2012:
1
• Design of potential packages
• Polling on potential options
• Council check-ins
June 2012: Recommendation on final package
July/August 2012
• I"/2rd Reading of Ballot Language
• Final polling on proposed package to inform campaign
4. Does Council support the concept of a stakeholder committee process which would
create potential revenue and/or bonding approaches to be taken to the voters in
November 2012?
Proposed Investment Strategy for New Revenue
Based on the "lessons learned" from other communities, staff is recommending considering a
ballot item in 2012 for new revenue for a citywide capital investment package. The 2012
timeframe would allow time to:
1. Thoroughly vet the projects
2. Engage community leaders and the public in a meaningful public process
3. Craft a package of improvements and message that resonates with the public
V. Potential Next Steps, Council Questions and Staff Recommendations
Depending on council direction next steps include the following:
Existing Revenue:
• Establish a more detailed capital improvement fund through refining revenue estimates
and creating a capital improvement fund which can fund projects from across the
organization.
• Prioritize a set of citywide capital improvements and investments based on the CIP
Guiding Principles adopted in the last budget document, which would be considered in
the annual CIP budget process. Critical deficiencies would be considered first with higher
priority action plan items considered second.
• Schedule an earlier check-in with council for review and feedback creating the capital
improvement program fund with initial proposed projects.
Potential New Revenue:
• Further analyze potential new revenue scenarios to establish a series of choices for
funding packages including bonding.
• Assemble and support a stakeholder panel which would advise staff and council
regarding packages for voter approval. For a 2012 ballot, staff would design a more
detailed stakeholder process during March 2011 and return to council in April for review
and approval.
• Develop a polling/focus group approach to understand voter opinions to help inform
stakeholders, staff and council.
VI. Questions for Council
1. Does Council have any clarifying questions regarding the capital improvement
needs and different approaches to funding such improvements?
2. Does Council endorse the idea of committing to a community capital investment
strategy from ongoing, existing funding of approximately $5.OM in General Fund
money?
3. Does Council endorse the policy of focusing on funding critical deficiencies for
existing assets/facilities first and higher priority new facilities/assets second?
12
4. Does Council support the concept of a stakeholder committee process which
would create potential revenue and/or bonding approaches to be taken to the
voters in November 2012?
VII. Proposed Investment Strategy
• To begin repositioning Boulder to better invest in its physical and business infrastructure,
staff recommends that current, unallocated revenues be targeted for a capital investment
strategy.
• Based on good business practices of taking adequate care of existing assets, staff
recommends prioritizing critical deficiencies first and high priority action plan items
second.
• Based on the "lessons learned" from other communities, staff is recommending
considering a ballot item in 2012 in order to allow time to thoroughly vet the projects,
engage community leaders and the public in a meaningful public process, and craft a
package of improvements and message that resonates with the public
Other items would continue to be under consideration for the 2011 ballot, such as potential
Energy Future options and smaller and/or targeted items such as the University Hill Residential
Services District and Transportation Maintenance Fee (Attachement C), among others. A
running list of potential ballot items is in Attachment B. Council meetings are scheduled for
ballot item consideration in July and August.
VIII Attachments:
A. Capital Improvement Program Guiding Principles
B. Summary of Potential Ballot Items for 2011 and 2012
C. Potential Smaller Scale Ballot Items - University Hill Residential Services
District and Transportation Maintenance Fee
D. White Paper on Experience from Other Communities
13
Appendix A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The City of Boulder Capital Improvements Program (CIP) addresses the ongoing major
business needs and maintenance and repair of city assets as well as enhancements and
expansion called for in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The CIP is a strategic
document that assures that the municipal organization maintains a strong bond rating,
implements community values, and has fiscal integrity. The City intends to prioritize its
investments both across and within funds based on the following guiding principles:
1. Capital Improvement Programs should be consistent with and implement
Council-accepted master plans and strategic plans.
2. Capital Improvements should achieve Community Sustainability Goals:
• Environmental - sustainable materials, construction practices, renewable
resources, etc.
• Social - enhancements that improve accessibility to city services and resources
provided to the community.
• Economic - effective and efficient use of public funds across the community.
3. As potential capital investments are identified, the city must demonstrate in the
CIP process that there are sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project or
program.
4. Capital Improvement Programs should provide enough capacity and flexibility
in our long-term planning to be able to respond to emerging, unanticipated needs.
5. Capital Improvement Programs should maintain and enhance the supporting
city-wide "business systems", such as information and finance systems, for the
city over the long-term.
6. Capital Improvement Programs should sustain or improve maintenance of
existing assets before investing in new assets.
7. Capital improvements should:
• Meet legal mandates from federal, state, or city levels
• Maintain or improve public safety and security
• Leverage external investments
• Promote community partnerships
• Reduce operating costs and improve efficiency
8. Capital programming should maximize efficiency of investments demonstrated
by measurable cost/benefit analyses and coordination of projects across
departments within and across funds.
9. The Capital Improvement Program should provide sufficient reserves to allow
for a sound fiscal foundation with benefits that include:
• A strong bond rating
• The ability to address emergencies and natural disasters
The Finance Subcommittee handed off the CIP "improvement" project to the CIP and
Budget Teams to carry through the 2011 Budget process. The CIP Team also made
progress on describing the CIP and its process more clearly and presenting the CIP in a
more comprehensive and understandable way.
14
Appendix B
Summary of potential ballot items for 2011 & 2012
Boulder's Energy November 2011 Covered in the narrative of the
Options Dec. 21, 2010 study session
memorandum and Jan 18,
2011 agenda memorandum.
Climate Action Plan Tax March 2013 November 2012 If the utility or authority is not
successful this tax could be
requested for extension to
continue with CAP ro rams.
RTD sales tax increase November 2011 Media information indicates
within a range of .1% to this will be placed on the ballot
.4% with the most likely in 2011, While this is not a city
to be .1% to .2%. tax if passed city residents
would pay the tax and the
amount will have an impact on
the maximum tax capacity that
may be accepted by the voters
in Boulder.
CIP financing and November 2011 or The city has not had a
operational cost funding 2012 comprehensive citywide CIP
for citywide items (not program and the general fund
specifically one fund has not been able to meet new
over another) needs since 2000. The
possibilities for this ballot item
range from individual capital
items to various packages of
items similar to the process
used by Denver and Fort
Collins. The funding sources for
consideration could be from
various taxes or fees, More
information to be provided for
Council in the first half of 2011.
Transportation November 2011 or Transportation Maintenance
Maintenance Fee 2012 Fee developed through
Transportation Advisory Board
process. Addresses operations
and maintenance of multimodal
transportations stem.
Uni Hill Residential November 2011 or Uni Hill Residential Services
Services District 2012 District developing thru Hill
.Ownershi Group
Mill levy increase due to Unknown at this Depending on a potential
Gallagher Amendment time decline in non-residential
property values, dynamics
created b the Gallagher
15
Amendment may prompt
communities, including
Boulder, to adjust property tax
rates to maintain the same
amount of revenue, The
Gallagher Amendment requires
that a certain ratio in
residential to non-residential
property taxes not be
exceeded. TABOR does not
allow mill levy adjustments
without voter a roval.
Vacation Rental By TBD Under evaluation
Owner
.25% Parks and December November 2013 It is recommended that the tax
Recreation Tax 31, 2015 be placed on the ballot at least
two years before it expires to
provide time to wind down
programs if the tax is not
renewed.
Boulder County Unknown at this Unknown at this time
time _
Boulder Valley School
District Unknown at this Unknown at this time
time
State of Colorado Unknown at this Unknown at this time
time
Open Space Tax .33% December Unknown at this Unknown at this time
31 2018 time
Open Space Tax .15% December Unknown at this Unknown at this time
31 2019 time
16
Appendix C
Potential Smaller Scale Ballot Items
Core operations and maintenance which catch up or improve on the city's ability to take care of
existing infrastructure remains a significant challenge. There have been two discussions
underway that could lead toward smaller scale or targeted initiatives to allow the city to more
adequately maintain facilities. Depending on the time horizon and scope of a larger package
focused on capital improvements, these targeted initiatives could move on an independent track.
Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF): The Transportation Advisory Board, working with
stakeholders and staff, identified a TMF as a preferred, potential source of funding to meet the
on-going operational and maintenance needs of the system. While a CIP ballot item could provide
funding for enhancements to the system and for key capital maintenance projects, such as
rebuilding major arterials, the on-going maintenance and operational needs of the system would
not be addressed by such a measure, and cannot be met with existing revenues in the long-term.
A TMF is a monthly fee that is collected (usually on utility bills) from residential and commercial
properties, based on estimated use of the transportation infrastructure. TMFs are usually based
on nationally accepted trip number estimates generated by various types of uses. TMFs provide a
stable source of revenue that can be used to maintain city streets, sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, bike lanes, multi-use paths, and medians. A TMF could be implemented at a variety of
levels. As an example, a basic level of accepted maintenance could be provided at about $15
per household per year. A TMF could be indexed to keep pace with inflation.
TMFs have been ruled as a legal financing mechanism in the state of Colorado (Bloom v. City of
Fort Collins, CO. 1989). The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a "transportation utility fee"
charged to owners or occupants of any developed lots or parcels of land for to fund maintenance
of local streets was not a property tax, but rather was a special fee which was reasonably related
to expenses incurred by the city in carrying out its legitimate goal of maintaining an effective
transportation network.
At a study session in November, 2010, Council suggested that staff continue work on developing
a TMF. While a TMF can be implemented by Council without voter approval, several Council
members expressed interest in putting the issue before voters. This could be presented as an
advisory vote on whether Council should levy a fee, and could be prepared for the November,
2011 ballot.
University Hill Residential Services District: Based on the success of other special districts within
the city such as the Central Area General Improvement District (GID), the idea of creating a
general improvement district, in the RH-5 high density residential area on the Hill, was conceived
of as a strategy to address trash and inconsistent property maintenance, both of which have been
long-standing problems in the area.
A Hill Ownership Group subcommittee has been meeting since August 2010 to determine the
scope of services that would be provided in the proposed district and the associated costs;
identify key property owners within the proposed district to solicit feedback and support; and to
understand the process and timeline for creating a general improvement district. Property owners
are currently being contacted and costs for services researched.
If appropriate support is received from property owners and residents to create the improvement
district, the goal is to have an election of proposed district property owners in November 2011.
The process to form the general improvement district would be similar to the recent formation of
the Boulder Junction Access Districts, which includes City Council acceptance of the petitions
and the scheduling of an election of the property owners to assess a mill levy.
Both the University Hill Residential Services District and TMF could potentially move on a
different track than a larger community-wide ballot since they are more targeted geographically
and/or by application and could be considered as early as November 2011.
17
Staff recommends keeping these potential ballot items under consideration for November 2011
until more information is known about state, regional and local ballot items. Also, existing
stakeholder processes may provide additional information to Council during the first half of 2011.
1$
Appendix D
Lessons Learned: Analysis of Recent Local Government Ballot
Initiatives
As the City of Boulder considers potential ballot options to address Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) needs, key lessons and findings can be drawn from other local government
experiences. With that in mind, this paper illuminates the critical elements required for a
successful CIP tax initiative as learned through the recent experiences of City and County
of Denver, the City of Ft. Collins and Boulder County. Each community also has
differences to consider ranging from political structure to size to breadth of capital
responsibilities.
The paper begins with a brief overview of each jurisdiction's recent efforts. This is
followed by a discussion of key findings and lessons learned drawn from the research.
The paper concludes with case studies of each jurisdiction detailing their distinct
approaches to CIP needs assessment, public process, and revenue sources among other
important elements.
OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF INITIATIVES
City and County of Denver
In 2004 and 2005, Denver city staff, working with consultants, conducted a thorough
capital needs assessment, which identified a lengthy list of critical public infrastructure
deficiencies. The city then convened a citizen committee in 2006 to help prioritize new
capital project needs. The efforts culminated in the 2007 ballot initiative "A-I."
Combined, the initiatives included more than $550 million in bond issuances (Better
Denver Bond Program) for new projects and major renovations, and a permanent 2.5 mill
levy increase to address identified critical deficiencies. Denver voters approved all
measures, infusing an additional $25 million in property taxes each year into the annual
CIP fund for critical maintenance needs, while providing bond financing to improve,
preserve, renovate and build new roads, libraries, parks, hospitals, public safety facilities,
and cultural facilities. In all, more than 290 projects are currently in the process of design
and construction.
City of Ft. Collins
In 1997 voters approved two separate $.25 cent sales tax increases to address capital
needs in the areas of roads, parks/open space and community priorities, with a 10-year
sunset provision. The two tax measures were successfully renewed in 2005 with a 10-
year sunset provision. In 2010 voters approved passage of an additional $.85 sales tax,
with a 10-year sunset provision. The approved tax increase will mainly address operating
needs, with some funding for on-going road maintenance.
Boulder County
Throughout the last decade Boulder County voters have extended or approved new taxes
in the sum of 2.4 mills and .55 sales and use tax for capital and operating needs. Boulder
County relied heavily upon polling and surveys to garner public input and stakeholder
engagement to assess community and campaign support for tax increases.
KEY FINDINGS
The researched jurisdictions employed widely divergent methods to fund their capital
project needs, any associated on-going operations and maintenance costs, and, in the case
of Boulder County, on-going operating programs. Their efforts differed in terms of
assessing need, prioritizing projects, public process, identified revenue source (e.g., sales
tax, property tax), and the use of new funds among other key elements. While the
methods employed differed for a host of reasons, best practices have emerged that
explain their successes. Below are the key findings from the research:
1. Thorough vetting of needs and projects
a. Conduct a needs assessment that considers industry standards (ex:
Pavement Condition Index for city roads).
b. Vet projects - scoping, costing, and shovel readiness, and includes on-
going Operating and Maintenance costs.
c. External validation of project elements, providing objectivity.
d. Internal culling of projects through clear criteria, creating a reasonably
sized and priced list of projects.
e. Thorough vetting is critical prior to engaging in a public process.
2. Public process to determine list/options
a. Recommend a committee approach for a large CIP ballot item, one that
engages cornrnunity leaders and has diverse community representation (in
terms of socio-economic, geographic, age, etc.).
b. Set expectation early with public committee that delivers
recommendations to the city manager and council,
c. Organize projects by type (parks, roads, buildings, etc.) to be reviewed by
stakeholders, potentially through subcommittees.
d. Provide subcornrnittees with project notebooks, with staff presentations of
proj ects.
e. Provide clear review criteria for subcommittees to help prioritize projects.
f. An executive committee should work to finalize project lists provided by
subconunittees, again utilizing pre-established criteria.
g. Boulder County has utilized polling and a targeted outreach process with
success for specific, rather than broad, tax increases. Outreach types have
ranged from multi-year stakeholder groups to targeted outreach to interest
group "thought leaders."
3. Assure that sufficient ongoing funding streams are available to maintain and
operate existing and new assets and facilities over time.
4. Revenue Source/Bonding
a. Property tax is a more predictable revenue source compared to sales and
use tax.
b. Bonding allows for expediting project completion, taking advantage of
lower construction costs, and publicly highlighting the capital
improvements to the community in a timely manner. A pay-as-you-go
strategy may take in excess of ten years to complete approved projects
and, as a result, community priorities may change over time, costs likely
increase, and construction impacts to the community are extended.
c. Consider a sunset or partial sunset provision for any tax extension or
increase.
5. Community Support/Selling the Measure
a. Develop a theme that resonates with public, such as "Sustaining our
Future."
b. Develop a communication strategy that demonstrates need by
appropriately using maintenance statistics and accepted industry norms,
but also communicate that the city has made the necessary trims and tough
cuts to the operating budget.
c. In addition to the stakeholder process, conduct thorough public outreach
effort - polling, surveys, attend neighborhood meetings, hold public
forums, council meetings/study sessions, etc.
d. City leadership must actively support the measure,
e. Must have public champions. Success requires a concerted effort based on
connnunicating need, community investment and impacts of continued
deferred maintenance,
6. Ballot Language
a. Ballot item(s) should be a mixture of critical maintenance and community
desires/expansions, addressing obvious needs and funding new projects
that appeal to civic pride and balance amenities citywide.
b. Ballot language should be specific, but not too specific in listing projects.
Use of the phrase "includes, but not limited to the following projects" to
allow flexibility and priority adjustments
CASE STUDIES
City and County of Denver
The City and County of Denver (CCD) has a strong mayor form of government as well as
a city council in its decision-making process. The CCD (pop. 610,300) has a long history
of addressing their capital needs through large bond initiatives, backed by property tax
revenues. In the early stages of developing a ballot measure for 2007, CCD looked back
to their 1998 ballot initiative for lessons learned. The 1998 ballot initiative, while
successful in terms of gaining voter approval, largely addressed new capital projects at
the expense of critical needs. As a result, major maintenance of city assets were deferred
requiring issuance of "catch up" bonds. However, the volume of projects in recent years
pushed this deferred funding into a longer timeframe. The new facilities passed in the
1998 ballot initiative added to the maintenance burden, along with the impact of
increased use and wear of facilities brought on by increasing population and rising cost of
maintenance construction.
CCD conducted an internal review of need and developed a public stakeholder process.
The process thoroughly vetted projects for their critical need in addition to meeting
community desires and enhanced service levels. The effort culnunated in the approval of
ballot initiatives "A- I" in 2007. Voters increased CCD's bonding capacity by $550
million, funded primarily through existing property tax revenue, to construct and/or
renovate city buildings. Voters also approved an annual 2.5 mill levy increase, thereby
adding $25 million annually to the maintenance budget for on-going maintenance needs.
Needs Assessment
In 2004, the Mayor convened an Infrastructure Task Force, consisting of department
staff, council members and consultants to assess the issues, quantify the problem and
make recommendations. The task force undertook a review of the condition of the city's
assets and developed a set of minimuru standards for each criteria of need. The
expectations of the public were also considered. Through their work, the task force
detennined that the city had been under-funding capital maintenance by approximately
$25 million annually.
Mayor and Finance staff used information from the Infrastructure Task Force Report
(2005) to develop a list of projects to address the identified critical needs. Key
considerations were project scope, costs, shovel readiness (ready to break ground in five
years) and on-going operation and maintenance costs. Staff spent almost four months
developing and culling the list. Projects that were not thoroughly scoped, contained
unrealistic cost estimates, were not shovel ready or failed to meet identified needs were
dropped in priority. Simultaneously, staff worked to develop a list of projects that would
make service levels equal across the city, enhance cultural offerings, and meet
community priorities.
Public Process
In 2006, Mayor Rickenlooper formed the 115-member Infrastructure Priorities Task
Force to develop an actionable response to the prior 2004 Infrastructure Task Force
conclusions. The task force examined capital facility and infrastructure needs and helped
to establish priorities and time frames. In a process that lasted more than a year and with
input from more than 1,500 residents, the Priorities Task Force developed the eight bond
proposals that subsequently appeared on the November 2007 ballot as Issues B through I
- known as the "Better Denver Bonds" program. Issue A, which was also on the ballot,
dealt with mill level funding that is separate from the bond program and funds critical
deficiencies in addition to ongoing operations and maintenance.
The Executive Committee of the Priorities Task Force, ultimately the final arbiter of the
ballot items, consisted of pillars of the community business leaders, non-profit leaders,
and neighborhood leaders. Eight subcommittees were created (Public Safety, Cultural,
Buildings, Arts, Transportation, New facilities, General Public Facilities, and Critical
Maintenance Needs) to select the list of projects in their respective areas. Each
subcommittee leader had representation on the Executive Committee.
Each subcommittee member was presented with a notebook of projects, each project had
three pages of information provided (scoping, costs, fiscal note for ongoing costs). Staff
provided presentations to the subcommittees, to provide members more in-depth
knowledge of the proposed projects. Priority Task Force subcommittees then prioritized
the list of projects using a clear set of criteria. However, subcommittees were not
provided dollar targets, making it difficult for them to determine the proper project list
size. The subcommittees provided their recommended list of projects to the Executive
Committee. The Priority Task Force Executive Committee, in consultation with the
mayor and finance department, narrowed the list to what the city could afford given its
debt capacity and available revenues. The mayor then presented the final list to city
council for approval. Council added a few projects based on their priorities to the list,
including a new fire station in the Stapleton area and removed some lower priority
projects. Ninety percent of the Priority Task Force recommended projects went forward
to the 2007 ballot.
Revenue Souree/Bondin
Ballot Initiative IA added 2.5 mills on all taxable property within the city and county in
perpetuity for the purpose of funding restoration, rehabilitation, refurbishment, or
replacement of the city's capital infrastructure. Ballot Initiative lB-1H (Better Denver
Bonds program) extended existing property tax to allow for more than $550 million in
bond capacity to address, in general, new cultural, parks, public safety, library,
transportation and general public office needs and desires. The bonding capacity was
available to the city as older bonds and debts were paid off.
The CCD used property taxes as the revenue source for two reasons. For one, the city had
a long history of using property taxes for bonding. As previous bonds were paid off,
property tax revenues became available to pay off new bonds. And two, property tax is a
more stable, less volatile revenue source compared to sales and use tax. Flattening or
decreasing revenue, which tends to happen to sales and use tax during downturns,
especially compared to property tax, could imperil the cities ability to pay off bonds,
requiring them to make significant cuts in operations in order to meet their bond
obligations. With property tax revenue, there is greater certainty that appropriate levels
of funding will be available to pay off the bonds as outlined in the ballot language.
External Letidershin
In large part Mayor Hickenlooper and key mayor staff led the project publicly. The
mayor filled most of the committee seats, with council review and input. The mayor in
concert with the Priority Task Force Executive Conunittee frnali-Ved the project list. The
mayor held hearings with Council on the list created by the Priority Task Force and he
personally took the list on the road to each council district to demonstrate the need for a
ballot measure.
Internal Leadership
Internally, finance staff largely led the project. Finance staff worked with departments to
create the list. They vetted the list for proper scopng, costing and on-going impacts.
Finance staffed the initial task force and worked closely with the Priority Task Force sub-
committees.
Campaign and Themes
As mentioned above, the mayor took the project list on the road in the Corm of' public
meetings. He crafted a message that underscored the need for a ballot measure and
explained the positive impacts the projects would have on the community. In addition,
key members from the Priority Task Force helped fundraisc for support of the measure
and garnered community support for the ballot measure. Lastly, the campaign utilized
catchy 30-second TV spots to sell the measures, which were received well by the media
and public.
Outcomes
290 funded projects through the bond program. The permanent 2.5 mill levy increase
annually funds approximately 30 maintenance projects.
Keys to Denver's Success
• In all, CCD spent four years developing the CIP tax measure.
• Needs assessment and project vetting was based upon industry standards and a
clear and objective scoring criteria.
• The Public Task Force process generated solid recommendations and helped
generate strong public support for the ballot measures.
• The city developed a coherent, concise and effective theme and communication
strategy.
• Strong leadership and political capital.
• Ballot language utilized the wording "includes, but not limited to" when
describing projects, allowing flexibility if priorities changed.
• Proposed projects addressed both critical deficiencies and community desires.
Denver's Lessons Learned
• Setting a dollar target for public stakeholder committees is difficult.
• Need to consider council priorities in developing project lists, so that their
projects are properly scoped, include accurate cost estimates, etc. prior to bringing
council a final project list.
• Assure that ongoing operations and maintenance are incorporated with
investments packages.
City of Ft. Collins
The City of Ft. Collins (pop. 137,000) has a similar structure to Boulder with a city
manager form of government. Ft. Collins historically has funded its C1P ballot measures
through sales and use tax revenues. In 1997, Ft. Collins voters approved the extension of
t-~vo sunsetting .25 sales and use tax measures to fund very specific road/transportation
projects and new facilities (library and community center). Both measures were renewed
in 2005. As opposed to bonding with the voter approved tax dollars, Ft. Collins used a
"pay-as-you-go" methodology to finance the approved projects. Reserves of cash were
built up over time, as requisite cash was available, projects could be initiated. In effect,
the City of Ft. Collins took more time to complete projects compared to the CCD.
Needs Assessment
The city conducted a needs assessment throughout 2004 to focus on their true CIP needs
and desires. Ft. Collins city manager led the effort with a team of department directors.
The team considered critical deficiencies and community desires to determine their needs
and the funding gap between needs and available resources. Ft. Collins staff concluded
that the city required a significant increase in CIP funding to tackle the backlog of critical
maintenance needs and meet unfunded community priorities.
Public Process
The city conducted a significant stakeholder process in a CIP tax ballot effort prior to the
1997 effort. At that time, the city convened a large community committee who worked
with staff over the course of several months to develop a recoranended list of project for
council consideration. Council rejected committee recommendations, instead carrying
forward their own list of projects for voter approval. Naturally, committee members
voiced disappointment that their time was wasted and their direction was ignored.
To avoid the same undesirable situation, city management utilized a. survey process as
opposed to a large stakeholder process for the 1997 effort. It should be mentioned,
however, that City of Ft. Collins staff acknowledge the usefulness of stakeholder group.
The city hired a third party consultant to conduct a series of citizen surveys. The various
surveys monitored the public's willingness to support tax extension, as well as types and
groups of projects they would support funding. Survey data pointed to community
support for the extension of the tax measures, for projects that improved the
transportation system and enhanced the city's cultural offerings. Projects lacking survey
support were removed from the proposed ballot language. Finally, the city's
communication strategy was formed through the analysis of survey data.
City staff and council sought public input through forums, neighborhood meetings and
council meetings and study sessions. Information garnered through survey and citizen
outreach efforts informed council's decisions on what voters would see on the ballot
measures. Through the public process and council considerations, the city narrowed the
list of projects fiom $1 billion to $125 million.
Revenue Source/BondinQ
In 1997, Ft. Collins voters approved the extension of two separate 0.25 percent sales tax
levies for a ten-year period. As an alternative to bonding, a pay-as-you-go approach was
used to fund the capital improvement projects approved by voters. This strategy requires
that sufficient funds be accumulated before projects can be completed. While this
approach allows the city to avoid incurring interest payments, completion of projects are
staggered over the life span of the sales tax. As a result, emerging or changing priorities
may arise over time and previously identified high -priority projects may be less
important to the community.
In 2005, the two expiring sales taxes were extended by voters. A 2010 ballot initiative to
increase sales and use tax by 0.85 percent to fund operating expenses and some capital
road maintenance was approved by voters.
External Leadership
The mayor and city manager worked with community groups and stakeholders to
coininunicate both capital maintenance and operating needs. A successful effort requires
consistent support from city leadership throughout the process. Attention should be paid
to ensuring that the organization has identified and implemented efficiencies prior to
seeking approval for new revenue.
Inlernal Leadership
City Manager's Office, with a cross departmental team, felt CMO stewardship was
required to maintain a neutral citywide perspective. An emphasis was placed on
examining needs from a citywide basis rather than from an individual department's
perspective.
Campaign
A broad coalition of citizens led the effort to build support for improving the city's
programs, services and infrastructure.
Outcomes
The city completed more than 20 major projects, including road and transportation
corridor improvements, and construction of a new library and community center. Both
0.25 percent sales and use tax measures were renewed by voters in 2005. A new 0.85
percent sales and use tax measure focused primarily on operations was approved by
voters in 2010.
Keys to Pt. Collins ' Success
• Vetting process - a key component of building support for a new funding source
to pay for key city improvements and/or operations requires that the city complete
a thorough analysis of proposed needs. This process should scrutinize proposals
to ensure that critically needed items are represented accurately and at accurate
funding levels. Prioritized lists should clearly articulate why each item is
important.
• A prioritized list of projects should be available to support communicating with
the public. This infonnation should be presented in a transparent and clear
manner. This document should emphasize that the city has completed a
comprehensive analysis of needs and should not contain items that appear to be
"wish list items."
• A successful approach for capital improvement ballot initiatives typically uses a
sunset approach for the associated funding mechanism.
Lessons I earned
• The city did not build in ongoing costs and contingencies into the ballot items as
the 90's were a time of rapid revenue growth. Ongoing operating and
maintenance costs of the projects were assumed in the continued growth of sales
and use tax receipts. Revenue growth flat lined within three years of approval of
the projects. As a result, the city had to make operations cuts in other areas in
order to fund the approved projects operations and maintenance.
• Priorities can change drastically over a 10-year timeframe. It is important to
balance project specificity with the need to be flexible in project listings on the
ballot.
• It is critical to set the groundwork early with public stakeholder groups. They
must understand that council is the city's elected body and therefore has final
input on proposed ballot language. As such, council may reject some or all of the
committee recommendations.
Boulder County
Boulder County (pop. 303,200) has a county commissioner form of government with
three elected commissioners. Boulder County utilizes polling and surveys to gauge
citizen interest and support for tax ballot measures. Also, Boulder County has used
outreach efforts tailored to particular investment areas. Examples include specific
initiatives for transportation, open space, and human services. As noted above, Denver
and Ft. Collins have demonstrated the value of stakeholder processes for large tax
increases and extensions across departments and project types.
Polling to Track Voter Opinions
Every spring, typically in March, the county contracts with a consultant to do a public
opinion survey. In recent years, Talmey-Drake has been the contractor who has
implemented survey and analyzed its results. The public opinion survey is a telephone
survey of registered voters. The county does not complete mail-in or internet-based
surveying because of the self-select and multiple response biases that can occur. The
telephone survey approach is a more scientific, representative sample to help the county
understand voter opinions.
There is a standard set of questions asked in every spring survey to track opinion trends
over time. There are typically additional questions asked regarding priorities and / or
changes in priorities about general topics in the county. If there is interest from the
county, there may be one or two additional questions that may ask voters about potential
ballot issues ideas.
In mid-summer, the county typically does another public opinion survey using the same
telephone survey methodology. This survey is focused on ballot issues and may ask
voter opinions about very specific ballot items. The county cannot spend money on such
surveying until a resolution is passed in support of placing an item on that year's ballot.
Other Processes Creating Ballot Items
The county has not used focus groups very much in the past although they are aware of
and have benefited from others focus groups. For example, the BVSD developed and
tested ballot concepts for the November 2010 election based on focus groups and BVSD
allowed some related county issues to be addressed in those focus groups.
Depending on the topic, the county has used a variety of'processes to shape ballot
proposals and to understand the potential community support for such proposals. For
example, for human services initiatives the county relies on the active and organized
human services groups to provide insights and input as well as to fund and run any
eventual campaigns. Early meetings with human services non-profits and community
leaders typically occur. There also could be a couple of broader, publicized hearings that
the general public is invited to attend to provide feedback on potential ballot items.
For other topics, such as green building initiatives, the county reaches out to particular
interest groups like environmental groups or green building contractors. In the case of
transportation improvements, the county has either conducted outreach to staff and
elected representatives of the cities to get input on projects in the county or has hosted a
process through the Consortium of Cities.
The county noted that every vote that has occurred in Boulder County in recent history
has passed in the City of Boulder. Even those initiatives that failed in the county still
passed in the City of Boulder with support rates ranging from about 60 to 70 percent.
The county provided the following information regarding Boulder County's approach to
Revenue SourcelBondin2
Boulder County has utilized both sales and use tax and property tax in their ballot
initiatives. Similarly, the county has employed both pay-as-you-go and bonding
authority to fund projects approved by voters.
For the open space and transportation issues, Boulder County voters approved additional
sales taxes; the Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds are based on existing general fund
revenues; the 2010 human services issue was a property tax mill levy. The county is
focused in each case on what will generate the most public support for, as opposed to
focusing on any nexus between the type of tax and type of improvement.
External leadership The commissioners provided direct and public support for the ballot
initiatives, with support from departments and community members.
Internal leadership The lead is taken by the office of the commissioners, with support
from the relevant department. The county attorney's office also provides significant
support.
Outcomes
Boulder County has had two recent transportation funding ballot initiatives a seven-
year 0.1 percent sales tax passed in 2001, and a 15 year extension passed in 2007. The
2008 extension included a project list in the resolution approving the ballot issue. Open
Space issues have also been primarily for capital purposes, the most recent issue includes
authority for $40 million in bonding for land acquisition. In 2009, county voters also
passed a bond issue for use of more than $6 million in Qualified Energy Conservation
Bonds for energy efficiency improvements to four county facilities.
Key's to Boulder County's Success
The reasons for a successful ballot measure vary based on a number of issues and criteria.
For the 2007 transportation issue, the county worked closely with each municipality in
order to build broad buy-in to the project list and promote positive word of mouth from
thought leaders in each community. This was a very different approach from the
preceding failure on a 0.2 percent tax for transit and trails, which polled very well, but
never got buy in from community leaders outside of Boulder. This issue ended up losing
by a significant margin, due to a strong negative vote everywhere outside of Boulder.
The 2010 open space issue was quite controversial, with strong opposition from the
Longmont Times-Call and a portion of the Boulder open space recreation community.
However, the ballot measure had very strong active support from the Boulder
Mountainbike Alliance. Additionally, the county raised quite a bit of money for targeted
direct mail in Longmont and south east regions of the county. The county also recruited
substantial support from certain segments of the business community (especially high
tech and outdoor businesses), although the chambers took no position.
Ultimately, there were huge geographical disparities, with more than 65 percent support
within the City of Boulder, 65 percent opposition in Longmont and about 50-50
everywhere else. City of Boulder residents have voted in favor of every county ballot
issues for many years, even the ones that ended up losing countywide.
Lessons Learned
Boulder County's perspective, it is key to have enough thought leader support across the
county in order to avoid a negative buzz in certain portions of the county, as well as to
assure that there is enough excitement to turn out core supporters.
ADDENDUM A - SAMPLE BALLOT LANGUAGE
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER BALLOT QUESTIONS 2007
Referred Question 1A
Capital Maintenance Mill Levy
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER TAXES BE INCREASED BY $ 27.5 MILLION
ANNUALLY BEGINNING IN 2008, AND BY WHATEVER ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS ARE RAISED
ANNUALLY THEREAFTER FROM AN AD VALOREM TAX ASSESSED AT THE RATE OF 2.5
MILLS ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY AND COUNTY FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF FUNDING THE RESTORATION, REHABILITATION, REFURBISHMENT, OR
REPLACEMENT OF THE CITY'S CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING PARKS, PUBLIC
WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND SHALL
THE REVENUES FROM THESE INCREASED TAXES BE COLLECTED AND SPENT IN EACH
FISCAL YEAR BY THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY
EXPENDITURE, REVENUE-RAISING, OR OTHER LIMITATION CONTAINED WITHIN ARTICLE
X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
YES NO
Referred Question 1B
Health and Human Services System Facilities Bonds
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER DEBT BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN
$48,583,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT MORE THAN
$104,056,320 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES SYSTEM FACILITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
IMPROVEMENTS AND RENOVATIONS TO DENVER HEALTH AND HOSPITAL BUILDING;
BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS AND RENOVATIONS TO CHILD CARE AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT CENTERS; REPLACING THE DENVER MUNICIPAL ANIMAL SHELTER;
AND, REPLACING THE EASTSIDE HUMAN SERVICES FACILITY, AND ALL NECESSARY,
INCIDENTAL OR APPURTENANT PROPERTIES, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND COSTS,
SUCH DEBT TO MATURE, BEAR INTEREST AND BE CALLABLE FOR REDEMPTION PRIOR
TO MATURITY, WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM NOT TO EXCEED THREE
PERCENT, AND SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT TO REFUND THE
DEBT AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF
SUCH REFUNDING DEBT THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT
ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT SET FORTH ABOVE, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ALL DEBT ISSUED BY THE
CITY PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE
REPAYMENT COSTS AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, AND SHALL CITY AND COUNTY
OF DENVER PROPERTY TAXES BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN A MAXIMUM
PHASED IN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $7,966,660 AND ANNUALLY WITHOUT LIMITATION AS
TO RATE, IN AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO PAY PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND PREMIUM, IF
ANY, ON SUCH DEBT, AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF
DENVER BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND EXPEND ALL SUCH PROPERTY
TAXES, OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS ON THE
PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT, PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE
FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER
ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
YES NO
Referred Question 1C
Library System Facilities Bonds
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER DEBT BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN
$51,883,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT MORE THAN
$111,154,783 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF LIBRARY SYSTEM
FACILITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: PERFORMING DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
ON EXISTING FACILITIES AND CONSTRUCTING NEW BRANCH FACILITIES AND ALL
NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR APPURTENANT PROPERTIES, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT
AND COSTS, SUCH DEBT TO MATURE, BEAR INTEREST AND BE CALLABLE FOR
REDEMPTION PRIOR TO MATURITY, WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM NOT
TO EXCEED THREE PERCENT, AND SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT
TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT AFTER THE
ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SET FORTH ABOVE, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ALL DEBT
ISSUED BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT DO
NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, AND SHALL
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER PROPERTY TAXES BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN
A MAXIMUM PHASED IN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $8,507,810 AND ANNUALLY WITHOUT
LIMITATION AS TO RATE, IN AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO PAY PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND
PREMIUM, IF ANY, ON SUCH DEBT, AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL CITY AND
COUNTY OF DENVER BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND EXPEND ALL SUCH
PROPERTY TAXES, OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS
ON THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT, PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER LEGALLY
AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AS VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGES
UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER
LAW?
YES_ NO
Referred Question 1D
Streets, Transportation, and Public Works System Facilities Bonds
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER DEBT BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN
$149,786,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT MORE THAN
$320,819,497 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF STREETS,
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS SYSTEM FACILITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO: REPAIRING STREETS, STRUCTURES, AND/OR INCREASING ROAD
CAPACITY; IMPROVING MULTIMODAL ACCESSIBILITY AND CONNECTIONS; REPLACING
AND/OR REPAIRING SOUND WALLS; REPAIRING AND/OR INSTALLING NEW CURB AND
GUTTER; IMPROVING TRANSIT STOP CONNECTIONS, STREETSCAPES AND UPGRADING
STREET MEDIANS; AND, CONSTRUCTING AND EXPANDING THE CHERRY CREEK SOLID
WASTE FACILITY, AND ALL NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR APPURTENANT PROPERTIES,
FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND COSTS, SUCH DEBT TO MATURE, BEAR INTEREST AND BE
CALLABLE FOR REDEMPTION PRIOR TO MATURITY, WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A
PREMIUM NOT TO EXCEED THREE PERCENT, AND SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO
ISSUE DEBT TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT
AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION DOES NOT
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SET FORTH ABOVE, AND PROVIDED
FURTHER THAT ALL DEBT ISSUED BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION IS
ISSUED ON TERMS THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS AUTHORIZED IN
THIS QUESTION, AND SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER PROPERTY TAXES BE
INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN A MAXIMUM PHASED IN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
$24,559,840 AND ANNUALLY WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE, IN AMOUNTS
SUFFICIENT TO PAY PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND PREMIUM, IF ANY, ON SUCH DEBT, AND
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER BE AUTHORIZED
TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND EXPEND ALL SUCH PROPERTY TAXES, OTHER LEGALLY
AVAILABLE FUNDS AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS ON THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT,
PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AS A
VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
YES NO
Referred Question 1E
Park System Facilities Bonds
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER DEBT BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN
$93,387,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT MORE THAN
$200,128,692 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF PARK SYSTEM
FACILITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO MAINTENANCE, REHABILITATION,
RESTORATION REPAIR AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF: DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION
SYSTEMS; POOLS; HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND FEATURES, PLAYGROUND, AND
BUILDING SYSTEMS; LANDSCAPES; TRAILS, ROADS AND PARKING LOTS; AND,
TOGETHER WITH ACQUISITION, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, PARK AND
RECREATION CENTERS, AND ALL NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR APPURTENANT
PROPERTIES, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND COSTS, SUCH DEBT TO MATURE, BEAR
INTEREST AND BE CALLABLE FOR REDEMPTION PRIOR TO MATURITY, WITH OR
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM NOT TO EXCEED THREE PERCENT, AND SHALL THE
CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED IN THIS
QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT THE
TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS
QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SET FORTH
ABOVE, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ALL DEBT ISSUED BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO
THIS QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS
AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, AND SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
PROPERTY TAXES BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN A MAXIMUM PHASED IN ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $15,313,045 AND ANNUALLY WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE, IN
AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO PAY PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND PREMIUM, IF ANY, ON SUCH
DEBT, AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER BE
AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND EXPEND ALL SUCH PROPERTY TAXES, OTHER
LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS ON THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH
DEBT, PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR SUCH
PURPOSE, AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20
OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
YES NO
Referred Question 1F
Public Office Facilities Bonds
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER DEBT BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN
$10,350,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT MORE THAN
$22,157,315 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF DEFERRED
MAINTENANCE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE FACILITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: THE
CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING AND THE FORMER CITY PERMIT CENTER, AND ALL
NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR APPURTENANT PROPERTIES, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT
AND COSTS, SUCH DEBT TO MATURE, BEAR INTEREST AND BE CALLABLE FOR
REDEMPTION PRIOR TO MATURITY, WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM NOT
TO EXCEED THREE PERCENT, AND SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT
TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT AFTER THE
ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SET FORTH ABOVE, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ALL
DEBT ISSUED BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT
DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, AND SHALL
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER PROPERTY TAXES BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN
A MAXIMUM PHASED IN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $1,697,255 AND ANNUALLY WITHOUT
LIMITATION AS TO RATE, IN AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO PAY PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND
PREMIUM, IF ANY, ON SUCH DEBT, AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL CITY AND
COUNTY OF DENVER BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND EXPEND ALL SUCH
PROPERTYTAXES, OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS
ON THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT, PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER LEGALLY
AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE
UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER
LAW?
YES NO
Referred Question 1G
Deferred Maintenance for Cultural Facilities Bond
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER DEBT BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN
$60,546,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT MORE THAN
$129,773,788 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF DEFERRED
MAINTENANCE FOR CULTURAL FACILITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
RENOVATION, RECONSTRUCTION, REPLACEMENT AND/OR REPAIR OF: THE DENVER
BOTANIC GARDENS BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, THE CONSERVATORY AND
GREENHOUSE; THE BOETTCHER CONCERT HALL; THE CHAMPA STREET SIDE OF THE
QUIGG NEWTON DENVER MUNICIPAL AUDITORIUM AND THE TEMPLE HOYNE BUELL
THEATRE REHEARSAL SPACE; AND THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE AND SCIENCE,
AND ALL NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR APPURTENANT PROPERTIES, FACILITIES,
EQUIPMENT AND COSTS, SUCH DEBT TO MATURE, BEAR INTEREST AND BE CALLABLE
FOR REDEMPTION PRIOR TO MATURITY, WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM
NOT TO EXCEED THREE PERCENT, AND SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE
DEBT TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT AFTER
THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SET FORTH ABOVE, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ALL
DEBT ISSUED BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT
DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, AND
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER PROPERTY TAXES BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE
THAN A MAXIMUM PHASED IN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $9,928,285 AND ANNUALLY
WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE, IN AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO PAY PRINCIPAL,
INTEREST AND PREMIUM, IF ANY, ON SUCH DEBT, AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND
EXPEND ALL SUCH PROPERTY TAXES, OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS AND
INVESTMENT EARNINGS ON THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT, PROPERTY TAXES AND
OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AS A VOTER APPROVED
REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION
OR ANY OTHER LAW?
YES NO
Referred Question 1 H
New Construction of Cultural Facilities Bonds
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER DEBT BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN
$70,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT MORE THAN
$112,513,675 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF NEW
CONSTRUCTION OF CULTURAL SYSTEM FACILITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
CLASSROOMS, LABS, A TEACHER EDUCATION CENTER AND OTHER FACILITIES FOR
THE DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE AND SCIENCE AND, THE RECONSTRUCTION AND
EXPANSION OF BOETTCHER CONCERT HALL, AND ALL NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR
APPURTENANT PROPERTIES, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND COSTS, SUCH DEBT TO
MATURE, BEAR INTEREST AND BE CALLABLE FOR REDEMPTION PRIOR TO MATURITY,
WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM NOT TO EXCEED THREE PERCENT, AND
SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED
IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT
THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO
THIS QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SET FORTH
ABOVE, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ALL DEBT ISSUED BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO
THIS QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS
AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, AND SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
PROPERTY TAXES BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN A MAXIMUM PHASED IN ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $7,507,788 AND ANNUALLY WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE, IN AMOUNTS
SUFFICIENT TO PAY PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND PREMIUM, IF ANY, ON SUCH DEBT,
AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER BE
AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND EXPEND ALL SUCH PROPERTY TAXES, OTHER
LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS ON THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH
DEBT, PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR SUCH
PURPOSE, AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20
OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
YES NO
Referred Question 11
Public Safety System Facilities Bonds
SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER DEBT BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN
$65,195,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT MORE THAN
$139,668,773 TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF PUBLIC SAFETY
SYSTEM FACILITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION
OR REPLACEMENT OF A POLICE CRIME LAB, FIRING RANGE, FIRE STATIONS AND
POLICE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS FACILITY, AND ALL NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR
APPURTENANT PROPERTIES, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND COSTS, SUCH DEBT TO
MATURE, BEAR INTEREST AND BE CALLABLE FOR REDEMPTION PRIOR TO MATURITY,
WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM NOT TO EXCEED THREE PERCENT, AND
SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED
IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT
THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO
THIS QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SET FORTH
ABOVE, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ALL DEBT ISSUED BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO
THIS QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS
AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, AND SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
PROPERTY TAXES BE INCREASED BY NOT MORE THAN A MAXIMUM PHASED IN ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $10,690,330 AND ANNUALLY WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE, IN
AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO PAY PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND PREMIUM, IF ANY, ON SUCH
DEBT, AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER BE
AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND EXPEND ALL SUCH PROPERTY TAXES, OTHER
LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS ON THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH
DEBT, PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR SUCH
PURPOSE, AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20
OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
YES NO
CITY OF FT. COLLINS BALLOT QUESTIONS 1997
Proposed Ordinance No. 29
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS EXTENDING, FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT
YEARS, THE EXISTING SALES AND USE TAX FOR NATURAL AREAS AND TRAILS AT THE
RATE OF 0.25% (25¢ ON A $100 PURCHASE), WHICH TAX IS PRESENTLY SCHEDULED TO
EXPIRE DECEMBER 31,1997; PROVIDING THAT THE REVENUES OF THE EXTENDED TAX
SHALL BE USED, IF SUFFICIENT, FOR THE FOLLOWING CAPITAL PROJECTS, AS PART
OF THE "BUILDING COMMUNITY CHOICES" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:
• NATURAL AREAS, OPEN LANDS, AND TRAILS ACQUISITION,
• CONSTRUCTION, ENHANCEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
• COMMUNITY HORTICULTURAL CENTER
• FOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK CONSTRUCTION
• COMMUNITY PARK IMPROVEMENTS
• REGIONAL TRAILS
AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE COST, DESIGN AND SCHEDULING OF THE
PROJECTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; THAT THE FULL AMOUNT OF
REVENUE FROM THE TAX MAY BE RETAINED AND EXPENDED BY THE CITY
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE REVENUE OR EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION; AND
THAT ANY EXCESS REVENUES GENERATED BY THE TAX SHALL BE USED FOR NATURAL
AREAS AND TRAILS.
FOR THE ORDINANCE
AGAINST THE ORDINANCE
Proposed Ordinance No. 30
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS EXTENDING, FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT
YEARS, THE EXISTING SALES AND USE TAX FOR STREET MAINTENANCE AND OVERLAY
AT THE RATE OF 0.25% (25¢ ON A $100 PURCHASE), WHICH TAX IS PRESENTLY
SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31,1997-1 PROVIDING THAT THE REVENUES
DERIVED FROM THE EXTENDED TAX WOULD BE USED, IF SUFFICIENT, FOR THE
FOLLOWING PURPOSES, AS PART OF THE "BUILDING COMMUNITY CHOICES" CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:
• STREET MAINTENANCE AND OVERLAY
• ANNUAL PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
• MASON STREET TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, PHASE 1 AND 2
• NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 1
AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE COST, DESIGN AND SCHEDULING OF THE
PROJECTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; THAT THE FULL AMOUNT OF
REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE TAX MAY BE RETAINED AND EXPENDED BY THE CITY
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE REVENUE OR EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION; AND
THAT ANY EXCESS REVENUES GENERATED BY THE TAX SHALL BE USED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF STREET MAINTENANCE AND OVERLAY.
FOR THE ORDINANCE
AGAINST THE ORDINANCE
Proposed Ordinance No. 31
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS EXTENDING, FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT
YEARS, THE EXISTING SALES AND USE TAX FOR CHOICES 95 CAPITAL PROJECTS, AT
THE RATE OF 0.25% (25¢ ON A $100 PURCHASE), WHICH TAX IS PRESENTLY
SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1997; PROVIDING THAT THE REVENUES
DERIVED FROM THE EXTENDED TAX WOULD BE USED, IF SUFFICIENT, FOR THE
FOLLOWING CAPITAL PROJECTS, AS PART OF THE "BUILDING COMMUNITY CHOICES"
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM":
1. STREET/TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS:
• PROSPECT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, POUDRE RIVER TO SUMMITVIEW
• NORTHEAST TRUCK ROUTE
• TAFT HILL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, DRAKE TO DERBY
• SHIELDS STREET IMPROVEMENTS, HORSETOOTH TO TROUTMAN
2. OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS:
• NEW NORTHSIDE AZTLAN COMMUNITY CENTER
• CITY/SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMUNITY PROJECTS
• LAND ACQUISITION AND/OR INITIAL DESIGN FOR A NEW POLICE BUILDING
• LIBRARY COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION ENHANCEMENTS
• EPIC STUDIO ICE RINK
• LAND ACQUISITION AND/OR INITIAL DESIGN FOR A NEW LIBRARY
• LAND ACQUISITION AND/OR INITIAL DESIGN FOR A NEW PERFORMING ARTS
CENTER
AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE COST, DESIGN, AND SCHEDULING OF THE
PROJECTS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; THAT THE FULL REVENUES
DERIVED FROM THE TAX MAY BE RETAINED AND EXPENDED BY THE CITY FOR SUCH
PURPOSES, NOT WITHSTANDING ANY STATE REVENUE OR EXPENDITURE LIMITATION
INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO
CONSTITUTION; AND THAT ANY EXCESS REVENUES GENERATED BY THE TAX SHALL BE
USED FOR SUCH CAPITAL PROJECTS AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
FOR THE ORDINANCE
AGAINST THE ORDINANCE
BOULDER COUNTY BALLOT QUESTION 2010
HUMAN SERVICES SAFETY NET MILL LEVY INCREASE
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $5.4 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL
FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2011) THROUGH AN INCREASE IN BOULDER
COUNTY'S AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY OF 0.9 MILL, FOR FIVE YEARS TO
AND INCLUDING 2015, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH SHALL BE USED TO BACKFILL
DEFICIENCIES IN STATE FUNDING FOR COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND
FOR CONTRACTS WITH NON-PROFIT AGENCIES MAINTAINING A SAFETY NET FOR
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN BOULDER COUNTY, SUCH INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX
REVENUES TO BE IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED
UNDER SECTION 29-1-301, C.R.S., EACH YEAR WITHOUT SUCH INCREASE, AND A
VOTER-APPROVED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CHANGE AND A VOTER-APPROVED
REVENUE CHANGE; AND SHALL THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN SETTING
THE ANNUAL MILL LEVY AS AUTHORIZED BY THIS ISSUE, REDUCE THE EFFECTIVE
TEMPORARY MILL LEVY FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH STATE
FUNDING HAS BEEN PARTIALLY OR FULLY RESTORED FOR COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES
PROGRAMS, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET
FORTH IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2010-92?