[BoulderCouncilHotline] August 14 Special City Council Meeting

[Yates, Bob]

Council Colleagues:


I will be unable attend the special council meeting called for August 14, due to a prior commitment. If I was able to attend, I would have made the following votes:


Items 3A/3B: I would not seek to call up these Landmark Alteration Certificates.


Item 4A: I would vote AGAINST Ordinance 8267, framing a ballot measure seeking to retain for the General Fund the extra, unanticipated money collected under the Sugary Drink Tax and to continue the tax at the current level. When the tax was placed on the ballot in 2016 by a citizens' initiative, the ballot measure represented to the voters that $3.8 million in tax would be collected per year. In fact, in the first year of its implementation, city staff estimates that $5.2 million in tax will be collected. I believe that the proposed 2018 ballot measure asks the wrong question. Rather than asking the voters whether the city can keep collecting the tax at the current rate--the highest of its kind in the nation--and retain the overage, the question we should be asking the voters is whether we should lower the tax so that the city collects only the amount promised to the voters in 2016.


Item 4B: I would vote in FAVOR of election reform Ordinances 8273 and 8274, but I would vote AGAINST the portion of Ordinances 8272 that lowers the recall threshold from 25% to 10%. While most of the charter changes proposed in Ordinance 8272 are administrative and are acceptable, I believe that the charter amendment lowering the threshold for a recall election from 25% of those voting in the last governor's race to 10% of those voting in the last two municipal election could invite frequent and disruptive recall elections. The change in methodology is good, but I cannot support the 10% threshold. Although the community should certainly have the opportunity to recall an elected official if a significant number of voters think this is appropriate, the 10% threshold is too low. Other major cities in Colorado, including Denver, Longmont, Fort Collins, and Colorado Springs use a 25% threshold. Moreover, with Boulder's at-large election of city council members, nearly every council member elected had a majority of voters who did not support the candidate. Typically, about 30,000 people vote in our municipal elections, with the five top vote getters being elected by votes in favor ranging from about 15,000 to down about 9,000. That means that between 50% (15,000) and 70% (21,000) of the voters did not vote in favor of a person who was elected. By lowering our recall threshold to 10%, only about 3,000 signatures would be needed to initiate a recall vote. Thus, gathering signatures of between one in five and one in seven of the voters who voted against a duly-elected official would trigger a recall vote. This threshold seems to me too low, as our peer cities on the Front Range have already recognized. If 25% was used as the threshold, I could support this ordinance.


Items 4C/4D/4E:  I would vote in FAVOR of Ordinances 8269, 8270, and 8271, asking the voters whether we may increase the number of appointees to the Housing Advisory Board from five to seven, and making other changes to the administration of the city's boards and commissions.


Best,

Bob

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180813/7a58323f/attachment.html