sample ballot

OFFICIAL BALLOT
GENERAL ELECTION
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2008
SAMPLE BALLOT
SCOTT DOYLE
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS:
To vote for the candidate(s) of your choice, completely fill in the OVAL to the left of the candidate(s) name. To vote for a person not on the
ballot, write in the name of the candidate in the space provided and fill in the OVAL to the left of the write-in line. To complete your ballot,
please review both sides. If you tear, deface or wrongly mark this ballot, return it to an election judge to get another. VOTE LIKE THIS
"Ballot issues referred by the general assembly or any political subdivision are listed by letter, and ballot issues initiated by the people are listed numerically. A
'yes' vote on any ballot issue is a vote in favor of changing current law or existing circumstances, and a 'no' vote on any ballot issue is a vote against changing
current law or existing circumstances." C.R.S. 1-40-115(2)
FEDERAL OFFICES
STATE OFFICES
COUNTY OFFICES
JUDICIARY
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS
(Vote for One Pair)
STATE SENATE DISTRICT 14
(Vote for One)
COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 2
(Vote for One)
COURT OF APPEALS
(Vote Yes or No)
John McCain/Sarah Palin
Republican
Matt Fries
Republican
Steve Johnson
Republican
Barack Obama/Joe Biden
Democratic
Bob Bacon
Democratic
Randy Eubanks
Democratic
Chuck Baldwin/Darrell L. Castle
Constitution
Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root
Libertarian
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 49
(Vote for One)
COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 3
(Vote for One)
Cynthia McKinney/Rosa A. Clemente
Green
Kevin Lundberg
Republican
Tom Donnelly
Republican
Jonathan E. Allen/Jeffrey D. Stath
HeartQuake '08
James Ross
Democratic
Roger Hoffmann
Democratic
Gene C. Amondson/Leroy J. Pletten
Prohibition
James Harris/Alyson Kennedy
Socialist Workers
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 51
(Vote for One)
Charles Jay/Dan Sallis Jr.
Boston Tea
Ken Bennett
Democratic
Alan Keyes/Brian Rohrbough
America's Independent
Don Marostica
Republican
Gloria La Riva/Robert Moses
Socialism and Liberation
Bradford Lyttle/Abraham Bassford
U.S. Pacifist
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 52
(Vote for One)
Frank Edward McEnulty/David Mangan
Unaffiliated
John Michael Kefalas
Democratic
Brian Moore/Stewart A. Alexander
Socialist, USA
Bob McCluskey
Republican
Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez
Unaffiliated
Thomas Robert Stevens/Alden Link
Objectivist
UNITED STATES SENATOR
(Vote for One)
Bob Schaffer
Republican
Mark Udall
Democratic
Bob Kinsey
Green
Douglas "Dayhorse" Campbell
American Constitution
Write-In
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 111th
UNITED STATES CONGRESS DISTRICT 4
(Vote for One)
Betsy Markey
Democratic
Marilyn N. Musgrave
Republican
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 53
(Vote for One)
Shall Judge Jerry N. Jones of the Colorado
Court of Appeals be retained in office?
YES
NO
COURT OF APPEALS
(Vote Yes or No)
Shall Judge Gilbert M. Roman of the
Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in
office?
JUDICIARY
YES
JUSTICE OF THE COLORADO
SUPREME COURT
(Vote Yes or No)
NO
Shall Justice Allison H. Eid of the Colorado
Supreme Court be retained in office?
YES
NO
COURT OF APPEALS
(Vote Yes or No)
Shall Judge Diana L. Terry of the Colorado
Court of Appeals be retained in office?
YES
JUSTICE OF THE COLORADO
SUPREME COURT
(Vote Yes or No)
Shall Justice Gregory J. Hobbs Jr. of the
Colorado Supreme Court be retained in
office?
NO
COUNTY JUDGE, LARIMER
(Vote Yes or No)
Shall Judge Christine A. Carney of the
Larimer County Court be retained in office?
Donna Gallup
Republican
YES
YES
Randy Fischer
Democratic
NO
NO
DISTRICT ATTORNEY 8th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
(Vote for One)
Larry R. Abrahamson
Republican
COURT OF APPEALS
(Vote Yes or No)
Shall Judge Steven L. Bernard of the
Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in
office?
COUNTY JUDGE, LARIMER
(Vote Yes or No)
Shall Judge Ronald L. Schultz of the Larimer
County Court be retained in office?
YES
YES
NO
NO
COURT OF APPEALS
(Vote Yes or No)
Shall Judge David M. Furman of the
Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in
office?
YES
NO
COURT OF APPEALS
(Vote Yes or No)
Shall Judge Robert D. Hawthorne of the
Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in
office?
YES
NO
STATE OF COLORADO
STATE OF COLORADO
STATE OF COLORADO
STATE OF COLORADO
Amendment 46
Amendment 50
Amendment 53
Amendment 56
Shall there be an amendment to the
Colorado constitution concerning a
prohibition against discrimination by the
state, and, in connection therewith,
prohibiting the state from discriminating
against or granting preferential treatment to
any individual or group on the basis of race,
sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the
operation of public employment, public
education, or public contracting; allowing
exceptions to the prohibition when bona fide
qualifications based on sex are reasonably
necessary or when action is necessary to
establish or maintain eligibility for federal
funds; preserving the validity of court orders
or consent decrees in effect at the time the
measure becomes effective; defining "state"
to include the state of Colorado, agencies or
departments of the state, public institutions
of higher education, political subdivisions, or
governmental instrumentalities of or within
the state; and making portions of the
measure found invalid severable from the
remainder of the measure?
YES
NO
Amendment 47
Shall there be an amendment to the
Colorado constitution concerning
participation in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, and, in connection
therewith, prohibiting an employer from
requiring that a person be a member and
pay any moneys to a labor organization or to
any other third party in lieu of payment to a
labor organization and creating a
misdemeanor criminal penalty for a person
who violates the provisions of the section?
Shall there be an amendment to the
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO
Colorado Revised Statutes extending the
THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION
criminal liability of a business entity to its
CONCERNING VOTER-APPROVED
REVISIONS TO LIMITED GAMING, AND, IN executive officials for the entity’s failure to
perform a specific duty imposed by law, and,
CONNECTION THEREWITH, ALLOWING
in connection therewith, conditioning an
THE LOCAL VOTERS IN CENTRAL CITY,
BLACK HAWK, AND CRIPPLE CREEK TO executive official’s liability upon his or her
knowledge of the duty imposed by law and of
EXTEND CASINO HOURS OF
the business entity’s failure to perform such
OPERATION, APPROVED GAMES TO
duty; and allowing an executive official who
INCLUDE ROULETTE AND CRAPS OR
discloses to the attorney general all facts
BOTH, AND MAXIMUM SINGLE BETS UP
TO $100; ADJUSTING DISTRIBUTIONS TO known to the official concerning a business's
criminal conduct to use that disclosure as an
CURRENT GAMING FUND RECIPIENTS
affirmative defense to criminal charges?
FOR GROWTH IN GAMING TAX
REVENUE DUE TO VOTER-APPROVED
REVISIONS IN GAMING; DISTRIBUTING
78% OF THE REMAINING GAMING TAX
REVENUE FROM THIS AMENDMENT FOR
STUDENT FINANCIAL AID AND
CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AT
COMMUNITY COLLEGES ACCORDING
TO THE PROPORTION OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE STUDENT ENROLLMENTS,
AND 22% FOR LOCAL GAMING IMPACTS
IN GILPIN AND TELLER COUNTIES AND
THE CITIES OF CENTRAL CITY, BLACK
HAWK, AND CRIPPLE CREEK
ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF
INCREASED TAX REVENUE FROM
VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS IN EACH
CITY OR COUNTY; AND REQUIRING ANY
INCREASE IN GAMING TAXES FROM THE
LEVELS IMPOSED AS OF JULY 1, 2008
TO BE APPROVED AT A STATEWIDE
ELECTION, IF LOCAL VOTERS IN ONE
OR MORE CITIES HAVE APPROVED ANY
REVISION TO LIMITED GAMING?
YES
NO
Amendment 51
YES
NO
Amendment 48
Shall there be an amendment to the
Colorado constitution defining the term
“person” to include any human being from
the moment of fertilization as “person” is
used in those provisions of the Colorado
constitution relating to inalienable rights,
equality of justice, and due process of law?
YES
NO
Amendment 49
Shall there be an amendment to the
Colorado constitution concerning deductions
from governmental payroll systems, and, in
connection therewith, prohibiting a
governmental payroll system from taking a
payroll deduction from any government
employee except deductions required by
federal law, tax withholdings, judicial liens
and garnishments, deductions for individual
or group health benefits or other insurance,
deductions for pension or retirement plans or
systems, or other savings or investment
programs, and charitable deductions?
YES
NO
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED
$186.1 MILLION ANNUALLY AFTER FULL
IMPLEMENTATION BY AN AMENDMENT
TO THE COLORADO REVISED
STATUTES CONCERNING AN INCREASE
IN THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX TO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR LONG-TERM
SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, AND, IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING
THE RATE OF THE STATE SALES AND
USE TAX BEGINNING ON JULY 1, 2009,
BY ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT IN
EACH OF THE NEXT TWO FISCAL
YEARS; PERMITTING THE STATE TO
RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES
FROM THE NEW TAX,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATE
SPENDING LIMIT; REQUIRING AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE NET REVENUE
FROM THE NEW TAX TO BE DEPOSITED
IN THE NEWLY CREATED
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES LONGTERM SERVICES CASH FUND;
REQUIRING THE MONEY IN THE FUND
TO BE USED TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM
SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; AND
PROHIBITING REDUCTIONS IN THE
LEVEL OF STATE APPROPRIATIONS IN
THE ANNUAL GENERAL
APPROPRIATION BILL EXISTING ON THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS MEASURE
FOR LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR
PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES?
Shall there be an amendment to the
Colorado Constitution concerning health
care coverage for employees, and, in
connection therewith, requiring employers
that regularly employ twenty or more
employees to provide major medical health
care coverage to their employees; excluding
the state and its political subdivisions from
the definition of "employer"; allowing an
employer to provide such health care
coverage either directly through a carrier,
company, or organization or acting as a selfinsurer, or indirectly by paying premiums to a
health insurance authority to be created
pursuant to this measure that will contract
YES
with health insurance carriers, companies,
and organizations to provide coverage to
NO
employees; providing that employees shall
not be required to pay more than twenty
Amendment 54
percent of the premium for such coverage
for themselves and more than thirty percent
Shall there be an amendment to the
of such coverage for the employees'
Colorado constitution concerning restrictions dependents; financing the costs of
on campaign contributions, and, in
administering the health insurance authority
connection therewith, prohibiting the holder
and health care coverage provided through
of contracts totaling $100,000 or more, as
the authority with premiums paid by
indexed for inflation, awarded by state or
employers to the authority and, if necessary,
local governments without competitive
such revenue sources other than the state
bidding ("sole source government
general fund as determined by the general
contracts"), including certain collective
assembly; directing the general assembly to
bargaining agreements, from making a
contribution for the benefit of a political party enact such laws as are necessary to
implement the measure; and setting the
or candidate for elective office during the
effective date of the measure to be no later
term of the contracts and for 2 years
thereafter; disqualifying a person who makes than November 1, 2009?
a contribution in a ballot issue election from
YES
entering into a sole source government
contract related to the ballot issue; and
imposing liability and penalties on contract
NO
holders, certain of their owners, officers and
directors, and government officials for
Amendment 57
violations of the amendment?
YES
NO
Amendment 55
Shall there be an amendment to the
Colorado constitution concerning cause for
employee discharge or suspension, and, in
connection therewith, requiring an employer
to establish and document just cause for the
discharge or suspension of a full-time
employee; defining “just cause” to mean
specified types of employee misconduct and
substandard job performance, the filing of
bankruptcy by the employer, or documented
economic circumstances that directly and
adversely affect the employer; exempting
from the just cause requirement business
entities that employ fewer than twenty
employees, nonprofit organizations that
employ fewer than one thousand employees,
governmental entities, and employees who
are covered by a collective bargaining
agreement that requires just cause for
discharge or suspension; allowing an
employee who believes he or she was
discharged or suspended without just cause
to file a civil action in state district court;
allowing a court that finds an employee’s
discharge or suspension to be in violation of
this amendment to award reinstatement in
the employee's former job, back wages,
damages, or any combination thereof; and
allowing the court to award attorneys fees to
the prevailing party?
YES
YES
NO
NO
Amendment 52
Shall there be an amendment to the
Colorado constitution concerning the
allocation of revenues from the state
severance tax imposed on minerals and
mineral fuels other than oil shale that are
extracted in the state, and, in connection
therewith, for fiscal years commencing on or
after July 1, 2008, requiring half of the
revenues to be credited to the local
government severance tax fund and the
remaining revenues to be credited first to the
severance tax trust fund until an annually
calculated limit is reached and then to a new
Colorado transportation trust fund, which
may be used only to fund the construction,
maintenance, and supervision of public
highways in the state, giving first priority to
reducing congestion on the Interstate 70
corridor?
YES
NO
Shall there be an amendment to the
Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a
safe workplace for employees, and, in
connection therewith, requiring employers to
provide safe and healthy workplaces for their
employees; restricting such requirement to
employers regularly employing ten or more
employees in the state; and enabling
employees who are injured because of an
employer's violation of this requirement to
file suit in district court, with the right to a jury
trial, to recover compensatory and
exemplary damages, actual past or future
pecuniary losses, and noneconomic losses
including pain and suffering, emotional
distress, inconvenience, mental anguish,
and loss of enjoyment of life, but prohibiting
injured employees from recovering any
damages for which the employee already
received compensation pursuant to the
"Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado"?
YES
NO
STATE OF COLORADO
STATE OF COLORADO
STATE OF COLORADO
LARIMER COUNTY
Amendment 58
Amendment 59
Referendum L
TREATMENT FACILITY
REFERRED ISSUE 1A
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED
$321.4 MILLION ANNUALLY BY AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO
REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE
SEVERANCE TAX ON OIL AND GAS
EXTRACTED IN THE STATE, AND, IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR
TAXABLE YEARS COMMENCING ON OR
AFTER JANUARY 1, 2009, CHANGING
THE TAX TO 5% OF TOTAL GROSS
INCOME FROM THE SALE OF OIL AND
GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE WHEN
THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL GROSS
INCOME IS AT LEAST $300,000;
ELIMINATING A CREDIT AGAINST THE
SEVERANCE TAX FOR PROPERTY
TAXES PAID BY OIL AND GAS
PRODUCERS AND INTEREST OWNERS;
REDUCING THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION
THAT QUALIFIES WELLS FOR AN
EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX;
EXEMPTING REVENUES FROM THE TAX
AND RELATED INVESTMENT INCOME
FROM STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITS; AND
REQUIRING THE TAX REVENUES TO BE
CREDITED AS FOLLOWS: (A) 22% TO
THE SEVERANCE TAX TRUST FUND, (B)
22% TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SEVERANCE TAX FUND, AND (C) 56% TO
A NEW SEVERANCE TAX STABILIZATION
TRUST FUND, OF WHICH 60% IS USED
TO FUND SCHOLARSHIPS FOR
COLORADO RESIDENTS ATTENDING
STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES,
15% TO FUND THE PRESERVATION OF
NATIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT, 10% TO
FUND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, 10%
TO FUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
IN COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
IMPACTED BY THE SEVERANCE OF OIL
AND GAS, AND 5% TO FUND
COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANTS?
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION
CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH
THE STATE FUNDS PUBLIC EDUCATION
FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE
TWELFTH GRADE, AND, IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR THE
2010-11 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH
STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER,
REQUIRING THAT ANY REVENUE THAT
THE STATE WOULD OTHERWISE BE
REQUIRED TO REFUND PURSUANT TO
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT ON STATE
FISCAL YEAR SPENDING BE
TRANSFERRED INSTEAD TO THE STATE
EDUCATION FUND; ELIMINATING THE
REQUIREMENT THAT, FOR THE 2011-12
STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE
FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, THE
STATEWIDE BASE PER PUPIL FUNDING
FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM
PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH
GRADE AND THE TOTAL STATE
FUNDING FOR ALL CATEGORICAL
PROGRAMS INCREASE ANNUALLY BY
AT LEAST THE RATE OF INFLATION;
CREATING A SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN THE
STATE EDUCATION FUND; REQUIRING
THAT A PORTION OF THE STATE
INCOME TAX REVENUE THAT IS
DEPOSITED IN THE STATE EDUCATION
FUND BE CREDITED TO THE SAVINGS
ACCOUNT IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES; REQUIRING EITHER
A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE OF
EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY OR, IN ANY STATE FISCAL
YEAR IN WHICH COLORADO PERSONAL
INCOME GROWS LESS THAN SIX
PERCENT BETWEEN THE TWO
PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEARS, A SIMPLE
MAJORITY VOTE OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY TO USE THE MONEYS IN
THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT;
ESTABLISHING THE PURPOSES FOR
WHICH MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS
ACCOUNT MAY BE SPENT;
ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM AMOUNT
THAT MAY BE IN THE SAVINGS
ACCOUNT IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR;
AND ALLOWING THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY TO TRANSFER MONEYS
FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE
STATE EDUCATION FUND, SO LONG AS
CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS FOR
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ARE MET?
An amendment to section 4 of article V of
the constitution of the state of Colorado,
concerning the ability of an elector of the
state of Colorado who has attained the age
of twenty-one years to serve as a member of
the Colorado general assembly.
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
Referendum M
Shall section 7 of article XVIII of the state
constitution concerning outdated, obsolete
provisions regarding land value increase be
repealed?
SHALL LARIMER COUNTY TAXES BE
INCREASED ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS
(FIRST FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE
IN 2009) ANNUALLY BY THE IMPOSITION
OF A .25% (25 CENTS ON 100 DOLLARS)
SALES AND USE TAX WITH ALL
REVENUE RESULTING FROM SUCH TAX
TO BE USED SOLELY TO CONSTRUCT
AND OPERATE A TREATMENT AND
DETOX FACILITY FOR MENTAL HEALTH,
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, AND ALCOHOL
ABUSE AND TO OPERATE OUT-PATIENT
SERVICES IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH; AND SHALL THE COUNTY
BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT AND
SPEND THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX
WITHOUT LIMITATION BY ARTICLE X,
SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO
CONSTITUTION?
YES
YES
NO
NO
Referendum N
Shall there be a repeal of section 5 of article
XVIII and article XXII of the state constitution,
concerning the elimination of outdated
obsolete provisions of the state constitution?
LARIMER COUNTY
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
HIDDEN VIEW ESTATES LID NO. 2008-1
REFERRED ISSUE 1B
YES
SHALL LARIMER COUNTY DEBT BE
INCREASED BY THE AMOUNT OF
$600,000, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF
$1,320,000; AND SHALL LARIMER
Referendum O
COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED
$1,320,000 ANNUALLY OR BY SUCH
Shall there be an amendment to the
LESSER ANNUAL AMOUNT AS MAY BE
Colorado constitution concerning ballot
NECESSARY TO PAY THE
initiatives, and, in connection therewith,
AFOREMENTIONED DEBT, BY IMPOSING
increasing the number of signatures required
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS UPON
for a proposed initiative to amend the state
PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY’S LOCAL
constitution; reducing the number of
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2008-1
signatures required for a proposed statutory
(HIDDEN VIEW ESTATES), WHICH
initiative; requiring a minimum number of
signatures for a proposed initiative to amend ASSESSMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO
PREPAYMENT AT THE OPTION OF THE
the state constitution to be gathered from
PROPERTY OWNER: SUCH DEBT TO
residents of each congressional district in
CONSIST OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
the state; increasing the time allowed to
BONDS OR OTHER FINANCIAL
gather signatures for a proposed statutory
initiative; modifying the review of initiative
OBLIGATIONS BEARING INTEREST AT A
petitions; establishing a filing deadline for
NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT
proposed initiatives to amend the state
TO EXCEED 6.00%; SUCH SPECIAL
constitution; and requiring a two-thirds vote
ASSESSMENT BONDS OR OTHER
of all members elected to each house of the
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS SHALL BE
general assembly to amend, repeal, or
ISSUED TO PAY THE COSTS OF
supersede any law enacted by an initiative
PROVIDING CERTAIN LOCAL
for a period of five years after the law
IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH DISTRICT, TO
becomes effective?
BE REPAID FROM THE PROCEEDS OF
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE
YES
IMPOSED UPON THE PROPERTY
INCLUDED WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT;
NO
SUCH TAXES TO CONSIST OF THE
AFOREMENTIONED SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS IMPOSED UPON THE
PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT
BENEFITED BY THE LOCAL
IMPROVEMENTS; AND SHALL THE
PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS OR
OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AND
THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH
ASSESSMENTS, AND INVESTMENT
INCOME THEREON CONSTITUTE
VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGES
AND BE COLLECTED AND SPENT BY
THE COUNTY WITHOUT REGARD TO
ANY EXPENDITURE, REVENUE-RAISING,
OR OTHER LIMITATION CONTAINED
WITHIN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION, AND
WITHOUT LIMITING IN ANY YEAR THE
AMOUNT OF OTHER REVENUES THAT
MAY BE COLLECTED AND SPENT BY
THE COUNTY?
NO
YES
NO
ST. VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT RE-1J
ST. VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT RE-1J
WINDSOR-SEVERANCE FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT
WINDSOR-SEVERANCE FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT
REFERRED ISSUE 3A
REFERRED ISSUE 3B
FORM OF MILL LEVY INCREASE
REFERRED ISSUE 4A
FORM OF BOND
REFERRED ISSUE 4B
SHALL WINDSOR-SEVERANCE FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT TAXES BE
INCREASED UP TO $1,250,000 (2011
AMOUNT AFTER PHASED-IN INCREASE)
ANNUALLY AND IN EACH YEAR
THEREAFTER BY WHATEVER
ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS ARE RAISED
FROM A PHASED-IN OPERATING MILL
LEVY IMPOSED AT A RATE OF 0.565
MILLS IN 2008, AN ADDITIONAL 0.565
MILLS IN 2009 AND AN ADDITIONAL 1.12
MILLS IN 2010 (THE TOTAL OF WHICH IS
2.25 MILLS AND IS IN ADDITION TO THE
MILL LEVY CURRENTLY IMPOSED BY
THE DISTRICT), TO BE USED TO PAY
THE COSTS OF,
SHALL WINDSOR-SEVERANCE FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT DEBT BE
INCREASED UP TO $3,822,000, WITH A
MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO
$5,949,000, AND SHALL DISTRICT TAXES
BE INCREASED UP TO $449,000
ANNUALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FINANCING THE COSTS OF,
SHALL ST. VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. RE-1J TAXES BE
INCREASED $16,500,000 IN TAX
COLLECTION YEAR 2009, AND BY
WHATEVER AMOUNTS AS MAY BE
COLLECTED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER
FROM A MILL LEVY INCREASE OF NOT
TO EXCEED 7.4 MILLS AS DETERMINED
ANNUALLY BY THE BOARD, FOR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES (WHICH
SHALL INCLUDE THE DISTRICT’S
EXISTING FOUR CHARTER SCHOOLS),
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
• RESTORING TEACHER AND STAFF
POSITIONS TO REDUCE CLASS SIZE,
• RESTORING INSTRUCTIONAL
PROGRAMS, SUCH AS ART, MUSIC
AND WORLD LANGUAGE,
• ATTRACTING, TRAINING AND
RETAINING HIGH-QUALITY
TEACHERS AND STAFF,
• INCREASING SCIENCE, MATH,
ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY AND
ARTS PROGRAMMING FOR THE 21ST
CENTURY,
• ADDING ADVANCED PLACEMENT
AND OTHER RIGOROUS AND
RELEVANT COURSES; AND
SHALL SUCH TAX INCREASE BE AN
ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY
IN EXCESS OF THE LEVY AUTHORIZED
FOR THE DISTRICT’S GENERAL FUND,
PURSUANT TO AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 22-54-108, C.R.S.; AND
SHALL THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED
TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND ALL
REVENUES FROM SUCH TAXES AND
THE EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT
OF SUCH TAXES AS A VOTER
APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN
EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITS WHICH
WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY UNDER
ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
YES
NO
SHALL ST. VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. RE-1J DEBT BE
INCREASED $189,000,000, WITH A
REPAYMENT COST OF NOT TO EXCEED
$430,800,000 AND SHALL DISTRICT
TAXES BE INCREASED NOT MORE THAN
$32,500,000 ANNUALLY FOR THE
PURPOSES OF ACQUIRING,
CONSTRUCTING OR PURCHASING
SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS,
ENLARGING, IMPROVING, REPAIRING
AND MAKING ADDITIONS TO SCHOOL
BUILDINGS AND EQUIPPING SCHOOLS,
AND PROVIDING OTHER CAPITAL
ASSETS FOR DISTRICT PURPOSES,
WHICH MAY INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT
LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
• REPAIRING AND RENOVATING
EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDINGS
DISTRICT-WIDE TO EXTEND THE
USEFUL LIFE OF EXISTING
FACILITIES, ADDRESS LIFE-SAFETY
ISSUES AND MAKE FACILITIES MORE
ENERGY EFFICIENT,
• ENHANCING COMPUTER AND
INTERNET ACCESS IN CLASSROOMS,
LIBRARIES AND LABS BY MAKING
TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITATE 21ST
CENTURY LEARNING DISTRICT-WIDE,
• MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO SKYLINE
HIGH SCHOOL TO PROVIDE A
DISTRICT-WIDE SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND
MATH PROGRAM,
• CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING A
NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THE
LOCATION OF WHICH IS TO BE
DETERMINED BY CAPACITY NEEDS,
• CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING A
NEW HIGH SCHOOL TO BE LOCATED
IN THE FREDERICK AREA,
AND SHALL THE MILL LEVY BE
INCREASED IN ANY YEAR, WITHOUT
LIMITATION OF RATE AND IN AN
AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE
PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND
INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT OR ANY
REFUNDING DEBT (OR TO CREATE A
RESERVE FOR SUCH PAYMENT), SUCH
DEBT TO BE EVIDENCED BY THE
ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS, INSTALLMENT SALES
AGREEMENTS, LEASE PURCHASE
AGREEMENTS OR OTHER MULTIPLEFISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
BEARING INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM NET
EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO
EXCEED 6.0%; SUCH BONDS TO BE
SOLD IN ONE SERIES OR MORE, FOR A
PRICE ABOVE OR BELOW THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SUCH SERIES,
ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND WITH
SUCH MATURITIES AS PERMITTED BY
LAW AND AS THE DISTRICT MAY
DETERMINE, INCLUDING PROVISIONS
FOR REDEMPTION OF THE BONDS
PRIOR TO MATURITY WITH OR
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM
OF NOT TO EXCEED THREE PERCENT;
AND SHALL THE DISTRICT 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 DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THIS
QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT
DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT
COSTS AUTHORIZED IN THIS
QUESTION; AND SHALL SUCH TAX
REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS FROM
THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH BOND
PROCEEDS AND TAX REVENUES BE
COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT AS
A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE
CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION
20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION
OR ANY OTHER LAW?
YES
NO
• HIRING FIREFIGHTERS/MEDICAL
RESCUE PERSONNEL FOR A NEW
SUBSTATION IN WEST WINDSOR,
• HIRING FIREFIGHTERS/MEDICAL
RESCUE PERSONNEL FOR THE
EXISTING SUBSTATION IN
SEVERANCE,
• MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING
CURRENT LEVELS OF FIRE
PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY
SERVICES,
• IMPROVING EMERGENCY RESPONSE
TIMES, AND
• HIRING A SUPPORT PERSON FOR
PERSONNEL SERVICES,
AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE
PERMITTED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND
EXPEND SUCH TAXES AS A VOTERAPPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER
ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND TO
EXCEED THE LIMITATION CONTAINED IN
SECTION 29-1-301 OF THE COLORADO
REVISED STATUTES?
YES
NO
• REMODELING AND EQUIPPING THE
CURRENT SEVERANCE SUBSTATION
IN ORDER TO IMPROVE
ACCESSIBILITY AND RESPONSE
TIMES IN A CORE POPULATION AREA,
AND
• CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING A
WEST WINDSOR SUBSTATION TO
IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY AND
RESPONSE TIMES, AND
• ACQUIRING AND EQUIPPING A NEW
FIRE ENGINE FOR THE WEST
SUBSTATION, AND
• REPLACING AN OUTDATED HEAVY
RESCUE TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT,
AND
• ACQUIRING LAND FOR A FUTURE
SUBSTATION IN THE SEVERANCE
CORE AREA,
SUCH DEBT TO CONSIST OF THE
ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS, WHICH BONDS
SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM
NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT
TO EXCEED 5.75% PER ANNUM AND BE
ISSUED AT SUCH TIMES AND PRICES
(AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN
SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH
TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT
HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS MAY DETERMINE; AND
SHALL AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES
BE LEVIED IN ANY YEAR, WITHOUT
LIMITATION AS TO RATE OR AMOUNT,
TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM IF
ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH BONDS
AS THE SAME BECOME DUE?
YES
NO
ESTES VALLEY
RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT
ESTES VALLEY
RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT
LARIMER COUNTY
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
LARIMER COUNTY
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
REFERRED ISSUE 4C
REFERRED ISSUE 4D
TERRY COVE #37
REFERRED ISSUE 5A
COTTONWOOD SHORES #42
REFERRED ISSUE 5C
SHALL TAXES BE INCREASED $9,000
ANNUALLY (IN THE FIRST YEAR) OR
SUCH GREATER AMOUNT AS IS RAISED
IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED
TERRY COVE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 37 BY THE IMPOSITION OF
AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES AT A
MILL LEVY RATE NOT TO EXCEED 8.969
MILLS, THE REVENUES OF WHICH WILL
BE COLLECTED BEGINNING JANUARY 1,
2009 AND EACH YEAR THEREAFTER,
SUCH REVENUES TO BE USED FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
ROADS AS REQUESTED IN THE
PETITION FOR CREATION OF THE
DISTRICT AND FOR THE GENERAL
OPERATING EXPENSES; SHALL THE
TERRY COVE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 37 BE CREATED; AND
SHALL THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH
TAXES, THE SPECIFIC OWNERSHIP
TAXES RECEIVED BY THE DISTRICT
AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS ON BOTH
CONSTITUTE VOTER APPROVED
REVENUE AND/OR SPENDING CHANGES
AND BE COLLECTED AND SPENT BY
THE DISTRICT WITHOUT REGARD TO
ANY SPENDING, REVENUE RAISING OR
OTHER LIMITATION CONTAINED WITHIN
ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION; AND SHALL
THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO
COLLECT AND EXPEND FROM ITS MILL
LEVY ANY SUCH AMOUNT WHICH IS
MORE THAN THE AMOUNT WHICH
WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED
UNDER THE 5½% LIMIT IMPOSED BY
SECTION 29-1-301, COLORADO REVISED
STATUTES IN 2008 AND EACH YEAR
THEREAFTER?
SHALL TAXES BE INCREASED $26,000
ANNUALLY (IN THE FIRST YEAR) OR
SUCH GREATER AMOUNT AS IS RAISED
IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED
COTTONWOOD SHORES PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 42 BY THE
IMPOSITION OF AD VALOREM
PROPERTY TAXES AT A MILL LEVY
RATE NOT TO EXCEED 20.407 MILLS,
THE REVENUES OF WHICH WILL BE
COLLECTED BEGINNING JANUARY 1,
2009 AND EACH YEAR THEREAFTER,
SUCH REVENUES TO BE USED FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
ROADS AS REQUESTED IN THE
PETITION FOR CREATION OF THE
DISTRICT AND FOR THE GENERAL
OPERATING EXPENSES; SHALL THE
COTTONWOOD SHORES PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 42 BE
CREATED; AND SHALL THE PROCEEDS
OF SUCH TAXES, THE SPECIFIC
OWNERSHIP TAXES RECEIVED BY THE
DISTRICT AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS
ON BOTH CONSTITUTE VOTER
APPROVED REVENUE AND/OR
SPENDING CHANGES AND BE
COLLECTED AND SPENT BY THE
DISTRICT WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY
SPENDING, REVENUE RAISING OR
OTHER LIMITATION CONTAINED WITHIN
ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION; AND SHALL
THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO
COLLECT AND EXPEND FROM ITS MILL
LEVY ANY SUCH AMOUNT WHICH IS
MORE THAN THE AMOUNT WHICH
WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED
UNDER THE 5½% LIMIT IMPOSED BY
SECTION 29-1-301, COLORADO REVISED
STATUTES IN 2008 AND EACH YEAR
THEREAFTER?
SHALL ESTES VALLEY RECREATION &
PARK DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED
UP TO $473,000 ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST
FULL FISCAL YEAR (2009) AND IN EACH
YEAR THEREAFTER BY WHATEVER
ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS ARE RAISED
FROM AN OPERATING MILL LEVY OF UP
TO 1.200 MILLS, WITH THE INCREASE TO
BE USED TO PAY THE COSTS OF
• TRAIL DEVELOPMENT AND
MAINTENANCE;
• GENERAL OPERATIONS OF THE
DISTRICT, INCLUDING WITHOUT
LIMITATION, TREE MAINTENANCE
FOR PINE BEETLE INFESTATION ON
DISTRICT PROPERTIES, POOL
OPERATIONS, EQUIPMENT AND
FACILITIES; AND
• THE OPERATING COSTS FOR THE
PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER IF
CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMUNITY
CENTER IS APPROVED BY THE
DISTRICT ELECTORS;
AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE
PERMITTED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND
EXPEND SUCH TAXES AS A VOTERAPPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER
ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND TO
EXCEED THE LIMITATION CONTAINED IN
SECTION 29-1-301 OF THE COLORADO
REVISED STATUTES?
YES
NO
SHALL ESTES VALLEY RECREATION &
PARK DISTRICT DEBT BE INCREASED
UP TO $14,900,000, WITH A MAXIMUM
REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO
$26,450,000, AND SHALL DISTRICT
TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $1,359,000
ANNUALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FINANCING THE COSTS OF SITE
PREPARATION, CONSTRUCTING AND
EQUIPPING A COMMUNITY CENTER,
LOCATED ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROPERTY LEASED PURSUANT TO A
COOPERATIVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, WHICH COMMUNITY
CENTER IS TO INCLUDE, WITHOUT
LIMITATION,
• RECREATION SPACE, INCLUDING A
GYMNASIUM, LOCKER ROOMS,
PROGRAM CLASSROOM/MEETING
SPACE AND A YOUTH CENTER,
• SPACE FOR CHILD CARE AND
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS, AND
• IMPROVEMENTS TO AND EXPANSION
OF THE EXISTING AQUATIC CENTER,
AND ADDITIONALLY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF FINANCING THE REPLACEMENT OF
THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT LAKE
ESTES GOLF COURSE, PROVIDING
MATCHING FUNDS FOR ACCESSIBILITY
AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT LAKE
ESTES RESTROOMS, AND OTHER
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS TO
DISTRICT FACILITIES, SUCH DEBT TO
CONSIST OF THE ISSUANCE AND
PAYMENT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR
INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM NET
EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO
EXCEED 5.95% PER ANNUM AND BE
ISSUED AT SUCH TIMES AND PRICES
(AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN
SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH
TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT
HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL
AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES BE
LEVIED IN ANY YEAR, WITHOUT
LIMITATION AS TO RATE OR AMOUNT,
TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM IF
ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH BONDS
AS THE SAME BECOME DUE; AND
SHALL ANY EARNINGS (REGARDLESS
OF AMOUNT) FROM THE INVESTMENT
OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES
AND BONDS CONSTITUTE A VOTERAPPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER
ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
RAINBOW LAKES #41
REFERRED ISSUE 5B
SHALL TAXES BE INCREASED $35,000
ANNUALLY (IN THE FIRST YEAR) OR
SUCH GREATER AMOUNT AS IS RAISED
IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED
RAINBOW LAKES PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 BY THE
IMPOSITION OF AD VALOREM
PROPERTY TAXES AT A MILL LEVY
RATE NOT TO EXCEED 9.714 MILLS, THE
REVENUES OF WHICH WILL BE
COLLECTED BEGINNING JANUARY 1,
2009 AND EACH YEAR THEREAFTER,
SUCH REVENUES TO BE USED FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
ROADS AS REQUESTED IN THE
PETITION FOR CREATION OF THE
DISTRICT AND FOR THE GENERAL
OPERATING EXPENSES; SHALL THE
RAINBOW LAKES PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 BE
CREATED; AND SHALL THE PROCEEDS
OF SUCH TAXES, THE SPECIFIC
OWNERSHIP TAXES RECEIVED BY THE
DISTRICT AND INVESTMENT EARNINGS
ON BOTH CONSTITUTE VOTER
APPROVED REVENUE AND/OR
SPENDING CHANGES AND BE
COLLECTED AND SPENT BY THE
DISTRICT WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY
SPENDING, REVENUE RAISING OR
OTHER LIMITATION CONTAINED WITHIN
ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION; AND SHALL
THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO
COLLECT AND EXPEND FROM ITS MILL
LEVY ANY SUCH AMOUNT WHICH IS
MORE THAN THE AMOUNT WHICH
WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED
UNDER THE 5½% LIMIT IMPOSED BY
SECTION 29-1-301, COLORADO REVISED
STATUTES IN 2008 AND EACH YEAR
THEREAFTER?
NO
ESTES PARK
LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT
REFERRED ISSUE 5D
Shall the Estes Park Local Marketing District
be established pursuant to the
Intergovernmental Agreement between the
Town of Estes Park and Larimer County?
YES
NO
REFERRED ISSUE 5E
SHALL THE ESTES PARK LOCAL
MARKETING DISTRICT TAXES BE
INCREASED $1.4 MILLION ANNUALLY IN
THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR AND BY
WHATEVER ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS ARE
RAISED ANNUALLY IN EACH
SUBSEQUENT YEAR BY THE LEVYING
OF A 2% MARKETING AND PROMOTION
TAX ON THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID OR
CHARGED TO PERSONS FOR ROOMS
OR ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN THE
DISTRICT, COMMENCING IN 2009 AND
CONTINUING THEREAFTER; AND SHALL
THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO
COLLECT, KEEP AND SPEND ALL
REVENUES RECEIVED IN 2009 AND
EACH YEAR THEREAFTER WITHOUT
REGARD TO ANY SPENDING, REVENUE,
OR OTHER LIMITATION IN ARTICLE X,
SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO
CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER
STATUTORY LAWS OF THE STATE OF
COLORADO?
YES
YES
NO
NO
END OF BALLOT