It's that time again, and little if any more time to guarantee that your ballot makes it to its destination in time for Nov 3 (we'll talk about the wisdom of mail-in ballots another time), so what are the issues facing Louisville on the ballot?

CANDIDATES
Well, we have Council elections, and depending on which of the three wards you're in, you've got different choices. Things to consider, regardless of which ward you are in and who the candidates are:

Which candidate will be willing to go against the prevailing winds, or even popular opinion, to do what's in the long term interest of the community?

Which candidate is more easily reached when something comes up?

Which candidate is willing to listen to all sides of an issue, basing the considerations, not on "going along to get along," or preconceived ideology, but on the facts as they present themselves, and making the decision that provides the fewest unintended consequences?

Which candidate will carefully consider how much things costs and how they will be paid for, and try most diligently to provide the voters with core, necessary services, that are available to all residents, not just special constituent groups?

Boulder Valley School District, B, E, and F - ON THE FENCE

I do not have children in school, nor do I have info on these specific candidates, but I expect for most people they want candidates who will take to heart the the obvious preferences: don't spend money needlessly, and fight for an education that encourages individuals to think on their own, and to value self discipline and lifelong education.

1A Open Space Tax "Extension" - NO

Open Space countywide 0.25% sales and Use Tax Extension and 50M Bond Authorization issue
This ballot language seems to say that this is simply a continuance of the Open Space authorization set to expire in 2019. Why on earth would we be renewing it 10 years early and setting it for another fifteen years, all the way to 2034 at a repayment cost of 140 Million dollars?

There's a hint in the full text of the ballot measure as published in the legal notices,
http://www.reporterherald.com/classifieds/results-legalnotices.asp
which includes the sentence "the current bond proceeds from the revenues approved by the voters for open space purposes will soon be expended or committed, and without additional funding sources, no additional uncommitted acquisitions could take place in the future."

Boulder County's 2008 financial report says the County incurred a 12.6% debt increase in just one year, claiming "The key factor in this increase was the issuance of $40 million in bonds for the purchase of open space offset by the payment of principal on other Open Space bonds. "

Wait, aren't we talking $50 million? So what's this increase in 2008? Turns out in 2007, the voters already extended the Open Space tax that was set to expire in 2009. "Shall the County's existing .10% sales and use tax for open space acquisition and improvements currently set to expire in 2009 be extended for twenty years, to and including December 31, 2029."

That ballot measure from 2007 extended open space purchases until 2029, and if the financial report from 2008 is to be believed, that money is already spent, and now they want more. The argument can be made that they assumed, in the flush times of 2007, that .10% would be more than enough to get them the money they wanted, but now that sales tax income has dropped, the percentage has to be higher. Even the experts aren't having much luck in the crystal ball department. Are we really willing to gamble that the economy will continue to improve when job losses have never recovered to anything slightly close to levels a year ago?

The argument that is made in the legal notice is that we should snatch up things now while they are cheap, but I listened to the US Senate housing hearings, this week, and it sure sounds like they are likely to drop a whole lot more. The Open Space department has already proven that it can't be relied upon to hold off - it spends as quickly as it gets and puts its hand right out again for more. Read all of the ballot language, and you'll see that if sales taxes won't pay it all, other County funds will be drained to avoid default on bonds. The huge debt loads on municipal bonds (the $140M in tax money required to pay for a $50M bond is 280% over the life of the bond). How sure are we, really, that this amount can be paid back from sales and use taxes? And remember, we are still also paying the .10% until 2019 (which apparently is already spent).

Workshops for City of Boulder residents, (see the July 14 study session packet (pdf) at www.bouldercolorado.gov) struggling with budget priorities, listed open space as dead last on their priority list. Why would the Commissioners assume that there would be support, in tough economic times, for yet more debt for Open Space?? While this wasn't a workshop held by the County, you would assume that they might have kept themselves informed about this issue. Louisville's survey indicated residents preferred to have government cut services rather than add new taxes. Are the Commissioners listening at all?


1B & 1C Climate Smart 85M Bond Authorization and 6.1M Loans for Energy Conservation - NO

When ClimateSmart was on the ballot in 2008, the vote totals indicated that it was far more popular in Boulder City than in the outlying areas. In some areas (like the mountains) nearly 50% of the voters opposed it. Even averaged out over all the precincts, more than one third of the County opposed it. This is a divisive issue in the communities, where folks feel the Commissioners will choose those citizens who support them when it comes to getting loans.

Considering that the loans are being processed "first come, first served" its more than likely the insiders will line up first. How many individual households have actually benefited from these loans to date? Is there a list? Do we know for sure these are folks who are good credit risks? Until employment numbers start increasing, even though Boulder County is doing better than elsewhere in the country, predictions are shaky at best.

As with all municipal bonds, Boulder County will be paying out percentage rates of interest for the use of these monies (6%, much higher than say homeowners lines of credit, which have admittedly dried up, and certainly higher than any interest in savings accounts, and far less volatile than the stock market). Commissioner Toor acknowledges (at an East County Live interview on CCTV54 this past week) that a great many of these bonds are being purchased locally. Aren't we simply giving the high rollers among us a better interest rate than they'd get with their stocks or bank accounts? On the public dime, for a full 15 years. Such a deal, and you end up looking wonderful for supporting the environment to boot. Aren't the municipal bond holders the ones taking the risks? Actually, no. If the borrowers don't pay back, the County will use tax dollars from the voting public to pay them back.

Bankers have risk assessment specialists (when they choose to use them) to be sure they get back good money for their investments. First come first served does not really qualify at any bank. Commissioners are not good bankers, and our economy is still not back where it should be. Providing tax-secured investments at rates that banks would consider seriously unwise, is dangerous to our communities.

According to http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewnewspaged/articleid/3199212/pageid/1#

"Boulder County's rate increased two-tenths of a percentage point to 6.3 percent. The county's highest unemployment rate during the past 19 years was 6.6 percent, which was recorded in January 2002, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has county data going back to 1990... [early in the year, in] March 2008 -- Colorado, Boulder and Broomfield had rates of 4.7 percent, 4 percent and 4.4 percent, respectively"

We are not out of the woods yet, and the Commissioners should not be acting as though there were no serious economic issues to consider. Sustainability projects are being put on hold around the country so that core services don't suffer, but our Commissioners arrogantly don't think Boulder County can be subject to these harsh realities. Bad guesses (the .10% guess for open space in 2007 was one) that pull badly needed finances out of the county, can bring us some painful reality checks indeed.

Regarding 1C, as communities struggle with their budgets, and as voters tighten their belts, programs that provide investors with good percentages on their money at the expense of the voters will be less and less popular, and since Boulder is doing better than most of the other communities, we will be seen as finding a way to tap other counties to keep our investors flush. This is very divisive, and will re-inflame old rivalries and distrusts between counties that we've worked very hard to resolve.

1D Term limits for the District Attorney - ON THE FENCE

This is one of those ballot issues that can cut both ways. While term limits are usually put into place to keep one individual from gaining too much power, there is always a balance to consider in terms of whether or not the public gets the person they really want, via the ballot box. Unfortunately, most people don't pay attention to D.A.s unless there is some important gaffe that gets noticed; many don't even fully understand what a D.A.'s responsibilities are. We need ways to determine the success or failure of a given D.A. (there are panels that review judges, for example), so the public has something to work with. There is nothing, however, that can take the place of an informed electorate; what we really need are good checks and balances and sunshine rules so that voters can make an intelligent decision. Whichever way this vote goes, that need will remain.

2A and 2B Clarifying definition of "public body" and how meeting notices are served to Council
YES
These are mostly housekeeping measures to be sure the terms in the Home Rule Charter are applied as intended (yes Council should be subject to open meeting rules, etc).

2C - Eliminate voter involvement with lease-purchase agreements - NO
As we've recently seen with County open space, when push comes to shove, and elected officials see an opportunity for some form of gain from handing over public land to private citizens, they will not hesitate to take public property officially purchased by the voters, and give it away to individual interests. We must assume that we won't intentionally elect anyone who might use such power to further their own political ends, but people are people, and no human is immune from the temptations that power brings. That premise is why we have a Constitution. The public should be protecting the investments in land that they have made for their civic future by keeping the right to vote for lease-purchase agreements. There may be a disadvantage in terms of the length of time required to get a vote done, but those who might benefit will wait for due process.