Passing Ballot Question 2M would give Boulder the bonding capacity to do major projects, like what’s envisioned in a current bond measure for North Boulder Rec Center.
At its simplest, Question 2M would increase the City of Boulder’s debt limitation from its current 3% of “assessed value” of taxable property to 3% of “actual value” of taxable property in Boulder. This is a sizable increase in debt limitation, perhaps from about $150 million to about $1.5 billion, although any new actual bonding would have to be voter-approved.
Question 2M would amend Section 97 of Boulder’s City Charter, but would pass with a simple majority of 50% (plus one) of the vote.
Colorado Law and What Other Cities Do
Per City of Boulder information, “a change to ‘actual’ value is consistent with how most municipalities and the state calculate debt limitation.” A very quick search turns up that Denver, Loveland, Longmont, and Erie already have limitations of up to 3% of actual property value, and it seems almost certain that more searching would turn up more cities.
The proposed charter language changes for Boulder’s Question 2M, and other sections in Section 97 of the Charter that wouldn’t be changed, have some similarities to what’s in Colorado Revised Statutes 3-15-302. Note that both the CRS section and the proposed 2M language say debt “shall not exceed” 3% of actual property value, so actual debt could be lower or even much lower than the cap.
Directly quoted from CRS 3-15-302 (1) (d) (II):
“The total amount of indebtedness for all such purposes shall not at any time exceed three percent of the actual value, as determined by the assessor, of the taxable property in the municipality except such debt as may be incurred in supplying water.”
If 2M passes, the beginning of Boulder Charter Section 97 would read:
“The city shall not become indebted for any purpose or in any manner to any amount which, including existing indebtedness, shall exceed three percent of the actual value of the taxable property within the city, as annually determined by the Boulder county assessor based on a biennially recalculated “level of value” set on January 1 of each odd-numbered year;”
In both state law and the currently existing Charter Section 97, there are requirements for any new bonding to be approved by an ordinance, and Boulder’s current Charter says new bonding must be approved by voters (and referred ballot measures are put on the ballot via ordinance).
Actual Proposed Charter Language Changes
Below, you’ll find the paragraph from Section 97 of the Charter that 2M would change, with mark-ups showing how 2M would change this section. Passages in italics are new language, while passages crossed out would be removed from the Charter:
The city shall not become indebted for any purpose or in any manner to any amount which, including existing indebtedness, shall exceed three percent of the assessed valuation actual value of the taxable property within the city, as shown by the last preceding assessment
for city purposes annually determined by the Boulder county assessor based on a biennially recalculated “level of value” set on January 1 of each odd-numbered year; provided, however, that in determining the limitation of the city’s power to incur indebtedness there shall be included only those bonds or other indebtedness payable solely from the proceeds of ad valorem taxes. Bonds or other securities payable in whole or in part from revenue to be derived from water, sewer, electric light and power, gas, or other public utilities, projects, enterprises, works, or ways from which the city will derive the revenue, or from sales, use, or other excise taxes, or from franchise fees or taxes, or from any other fees and charges shall not be included in determining the outstanding indebtedness of the city. Such revenue bonds or other securities may be additionally secured by a pledge of the full faith and credit of the city without being required to be included in such computation of indebtedness.
Actual Ballot Title: What You’ll See on Your Ballot
Debt Limit City Charter Language Change
Shall Section 97 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8762 to modify the City’s debt limitation to be not more than three percent of the actual value of the taxable property within the City?
Richard’s Take
I’ll be neutral on this measure, because I can sort of see the reason for it, but I have a few comments.
I want to start by saying I reached out to two City of Boulder departments looking for information on this measure, and got nothing. Not even a “thanks for calling/emailing.” Nada. My question was quite reasonable – what does 2M mean in real, exact dollars? I don’t normally complain a lot about not getting a reply because I know everybody’s busy, but I went 0-for-2 like I was batting ninth for the Colorado Rockies.
I do expect to see real numbers when I get my TABOR guide in the mail, but for now I’m really going by what I heard from various City Council candidates I interviewed. I trust that they were telling the truth and anyone who commented said about the same thing, but I typically prefer real numbers down to the penny, even though pennies are being phased out.
In a nutshell, what I understand is 2M would increase the debt limit from around $150 million to around $1.5 billion with a B.
A number of Council candidates said this measure would be necessary to have the debt capacity for the $400 million bond issue we’re seeing in Ballot Issue 2K. Fine. It’s a logical reason to increase the debt limit, but all the way to $1.5 billion? And of course, it’s possible we will see additional bond measures over time as infrastructure keeps on aging, and having debt capacity might make given projects that I might actually love possible within shorter amounts of time. I get it – I’ve had a mortgage and car loans, and I know most big projects like a new rec center need to be financed.
I’m going to give the Council candidates credit for the following points that raise questions in my mind, no credit to me whatsoever. They’re not really rhetorical, either – they merit very public answers. Why would we have to go to 3% of actual value, and not some other number? What’s the big increase really for? I’ve heard people talk about being able to do the projects mentioned in 2K, but what else with the extra more than a billion dollars? I don’t love being facetious, but a thought popped into my head along the lines of “Is Boulder planning to put a bid in on Elon Musk’s SpaceX?” Snark over, but I don’t know why we need to go all the way to $1.5 billion and nobody’s telling me.
I don’t really want to trash this ballot measure, and readers should notice I’m neutral, not opposed. I do understand that voters would still have to pass bond measures for the city to use this bonding capacity, and during this election cycle I’ve certainly noticed more skepticism about city proposals and projects than in other years, so perhaps some of them wouldn’t pass. But in any campaign, it’s a good idea to make sure voters know not just “what’s” being proposed, but also the “why” in a way that might convince the skeptics. If 2M is only to align with allowances in state statute, fine, but it’s also a huge amount of debt allowance that might entail debt servicing that I get to pay for, so I remain a little less than enthusiastic.
