Arvada Election Questions 2018
Arvada for All the People
Recommendations
City of Arvada
Ballot Question 3F
Street Improvement Bond
Neutral
The Ralston Road improvements that would be funded by this bond are needed and necessary. Arvada for All the People supports this upgrade and finds the cost as described in the ballot language to be reasonable.
However, there are too many questions unanswered by City Hall about the 72nd Avenue–Union Pacific Railroad crossing project for us to fully support the entire measure.
Be aware that if this particular measure does not pass, the City using this same revenue stream with no increase in taxes, could propose another street projects bond next year.
Here are questions about the 72nd Avenue–Railroad crossing that have yet to be addressed by the proponents:
1) Why an underpass? The City Manager has been asked repeatedly why an expensive and very disruptive construction for an underpass is preferred over an improved at-grade crossing. We haven’t been able to find out if there was even a negotiation with Union Pacific about an at-grade improvement.
2) The price for the 72nd Avenue underpass is pegged at $53 million. That’s 66 percent of the bond’s projects cost. That seems like a lot for one project when there are so many transportation infrastructure needs throughout the city. Why so much for this one project? Why has the 72nd Avenue-RR crossing become the top road improvement priority for the city?
3) Then again, what happens if federal funds contributions reduce the cost to the taxpayer? Or even more interesting, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission may require (and the City may negotiate for) the Union Pacific to pay up to half the cost. What happens to the saved money? Up to $26 million. The ballot language is vague about how surplus money from the bond might be spent. It appears that the City could spend up to $26 million on ANY sidewalk, crosswalk, or intersection along ANY east-west street.
4) We have not been able to get from the City Manager any data about current railroad traffic on the Union Pacific line that crosses 72nd Avenue. Is it really significant and creating genuine automobile traffic problems on 72nd Avenue, Kipling, or Oak streets? Since Xcel is decommissioning two coal power plants in Colorado, there may be even less railroad traffic on that line in the near future. Is this one improvement really worth a potential cost to the taxpayers of over $50 million?
Arvada voters will have to decide if out of a $125 million bond, the $17 million improvements for Ralston Road are worth all of the rest of the tax dollars going to interest and the 72nd Avenue-Railroad project.
There are too many unknowns and unanswered questions about the major portion of this bond measure for Arvada for All the People to unreservedly support Question A3. We recommend that voters seek answers themselves and make up their own minds.
|
WITHOUT IMPOSING ANY NEW TAX or INCREASING ANY TAX RATE, SHALL CITY OF ARVADA DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $79.8 MILLION WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $125 MILLION, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS AND FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BY ENHANCING INTERSECTIONS, SIDEWALKS AND CROSSWALKS, AND IMPROVING DRIVER SAFETY BY EASING TRAFFIC CONGESTION ALONG MAJOR EAST-WEST ROADS IN THE CITY, SPECIFICALLY RALSTON ROAD BETWEEN YUKON AND GARRISON STREETS, AND ON 72ND AVENUE BETWEEN KIPLING AND SIMMS STREETS; PROVIDED THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF PROCEEDS WILL BE MONITORED BY A COUNCIL APPOINTED OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF RESIDENTS, AND SUCH EXPENDITURES WILL BE REPORTED IN THE CITY'S INDEPENDENT AUDIT PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE AND NO PROCEEDS MAY BE USED FOR CITY ADMINISTRATION. |
* * *
Arvada Fire Protection District
Ballot Question 6F
“Revenue Stabilization”
No
1) The need for this is undemonstrated. There is not a decline in revenues at the Fire District:
From the 2018 AFPD Budget p. 39
Download 2018 Final Budget Narrative
2) It is too complicated. Read it then try and explain it to someone. From the ballot language, if the Residential Assessment Rate declines, then the Fire District's mill levy will increase.
3) Your taxes are going to go up. Someone has got to pay for a stable revenue stream … that would be you, the taxpayer.
4) This is more properly an issue for the state legislature. The problem (such as it exists) is the result of the effects of two amendments to the Colorado constitution: the Gallageher Amendment and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, TABOR. Consequently, the best fix for any problem should be worked out at the state capitol.
|
WITHOUT INCREASING THE DISTRICT'S EFFECTIVE TAX RATE (RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT RATE MULTIPLIED BY THE DISTRICT'S MILL LEVY) AND IN ORDER TO STABILIZE TAX REVENUE THAT THE DISTRICT NEEDS TO PROVIDE ITS COMMUNITY WITH FIRE, RESCUE, AMBULANCE AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: • MAINTAINING EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIMES; SHALL ARVADA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO DECREASE OR INCREASE ITS CURRENT AND ALL FUTURE MILL LEVIES, IF ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 6, 2018, THERE ARE CHANGES IN THE METHOD OF CALCULATING ASSESSED VALUATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL VALUATION USED TO DETERMINE RESIDENTIAL ASSESSED VALUATION DUE TO ARTICLE X SECTION 3 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION SO THAT, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE ACTUAL TAX REVENUES GENERATED BY SUCH MILL LEVIES ARE THE SAME AS THE ACTUAL TAX REVENUES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GENERATED HAD SUCH CHANGES NOT OCCURRED? |
* * *
State of Colorado
Amendment 74
No
This is a state question with significant local effects. Amendment 74 would strip away virtually all the safeguards that local control gives us to make decisions about how our city progresses. This confusing and overly broad amendment, supposedly to protect property rights, would require the government (i.e. the taxpayers) to compensate property owners, including corporate interests and industry, for any decrease in the value of their property – including loss of profits – due to any government law or regulation.
What You Need to Know About Amendment 74
... the language is so broad that it could limit or make impossible regular functions of local government, as well as burden taxpayers with tremendous costs of litigation and compensation for private property owners.5280 Magazine; September 22, 2018
This ballot measure would define almost any government health, safety or environmental regulation that limits what a property owner can do as a "taking" of private property, thereby requiring us as taxpayers to compensate the property owner for reasonable restrictions protecting communities.
Will Toor – Daily Camera; August 11, 2018
|
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT TO AWARD JUST COMPENSATION TO OWNERS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WHEN A GOVERNMENT LAW OR REGULATION REDUCES THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY? |
Recent Comments