Mountain Mayors

Given the historic nature of this year’s ballot, The Mountain Mayors would like share our positions and thinking on the ballot questions that we have reached significant agreement upon. For those ballot questions not included in this statement, we either did not discuss or did not reach a consensus position.

Referendum O – Support /Vote YES

The Colorado Constitution is the guiding document for representative democracy in the state. As such it is the blueprint for the powers, responsibilities, and limits of government in Colorado. Despite the importance of the document, it has been relatively simple to amend. Consequently, rather than a concise workable document, the Colorado Constitution has become a patchwork of contradictory mandates and a focal point for debates over the state budget.

The current approach has not been to the advantage of Colorado residents.

Referendum O raises the bar for changing our state constitution, while simultaneously ensuring that citizens have a direct method of enacting legislation. We believe that the changes proposed by Referendum O are good ones.

Referendum O requires more signatures from throughout the state’s congregational districts to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. This geographical requirement ensures that future proposed amendments will have more than support from just one part of the state before going to a statewide vote. At the same time, the referendum makes it easier for citizens to put statutory or legislative proposals on the ballot with the assurance that, if approved, the newly approved legislation cannot be changed by the legislature for five years without a two-thirds majority vote.

Citizens often go the route of changing the constitution for fear that legislators will amend any approved news laws during the next legislative session. Referendum O makes it harder for the legislature to tamper with such citizen led statutory changes.

Constitutional amendments should be reserved for issues of significant long-term impact; not an ideological response to the issue of the day. They should meet a higher standard before being placed on the ballot.

Referendum O is a reasonable change and sensible adjustment to our state constitution.

Amendment 59 – Support /Vote YES

State government in Colorado has been hampered for too long by conflicting mandates in the state constitution. Amendment 59, known as Savings Accounts for Education, or SAFE, offers the opportunity to address these conflicts and prepare the state to better address issues in the 21st century.

Currently, amendments such as TABOR and 23 work at cross purposes. While TABOR works to restrict state government spending, Amendment 23 demands additional state spending on education. The resulting conflict is akin to driving a car with both feet simultaneously on the break and the accelerator. Such an approach is counterproductive in a car as well as in state government. The current conflict ensures that legislators are hamstrung in their efforts to address statewide challenges, forced to rob one program to pay for another, and prevented from establishing something as prudent as a rainy-day fund.

Amendment 59 presents reasoned changes to the constitution. By removing TABOR’s complicated budgeting formulas, while keeping the requirement that all taxes be voted on by citizens, and eliminating amendment 23’s educational funding mandate, and instead putting budget surpluses into an educational saving account, Amendment 59 brings fiscal common sense back to Colorado’s constitution.

Amendment 52 – Opposed / Vote NO

Amendment 52 is an effort to shore up transportation funding in our state. Unfortunately, amending the constitution to include funding mandates for a particular statewide issue has limited value. We opposed this approach to meeting the state’s transportation infrastructure needs.

We are well aware of the funding challenges facing Colorado's transportation infrastructure through the work of the Governor's blue ribbon panel on transportation and the efforts of Colorado Department of Transportation director Russell George. We know that more money is necessary to keep our transportation infrastructure safe and adequate.

Unfortunately, Amendment 52 doesn’t give CDOT the tools it needs to address infrastructure and congestion issues. Instead, in puts funding mandates in the constitution for transportation and the same time Amendment 59 proposes taking funding mandates out of the constitution for education. Our state already has experience with budgeting with the ballot box and, although there is nothing wrong with a statutory law about how to spend public dollars, such legislation does not belong in our constitution.

Please be sure to vote on November 4!

Sincerely,

The Mountain Mayors

Frank Breslin, New Castle

Bruce Christensen, Glenwood Springs

Leroy Duroux, Basalt

Michael Hassig, Carbondale

Mick Ireland, Aspen

Keith Lambert, Rifle

Roy McClung, Parachute

Doug Mercatoris, Snowmass Village

Energy Issues

Energy Issues

Joint letter in Oil Shale Development

This letter was endorsed at the September 5, 2008 Mayors Meeting.

PDF version with signatures and attachment

Mountain Mayors

An Alliance for Cooperation & Action

September 22, 2008

As Mayors of communities in the Colorado and Roaring Fork River Valleys, we would like to express our hopes and concerns relating to Oil Shale research and development in our region. Although many of the views expressed in this joint letter have been shared at an individual or community level, we believe the potential scale of oil shale development warrants a united voice on the issue. This letter builds on our joint resolution on energy issues that we and our respective boards adopted in 2007 (see Attachment A).

We fully recognize the critical role liquid fuels place in the national economy and its important role in the nation's overall security. We also all recognize and appreciate the economic advantages of a strong energy sector. Indeed, many of our communities have directly benefited from current natural gas development over the last several years.

The benefits oil and gas development, however, are not without significant impacts on our community infrastructure, environment, and quality of life. As the recent gas boom in our area illustrates, without balanced regulation and sufficient revenue to the most impacted communities, local jurisdictions are quickly overwhelmed by the scale and pace of development. Road and highway intersections become bottlenecks, wastewater systems need to be upgraded, and schools need to expand. The impacts also extend beyond physical infrastructure to strain community networks. Affordable housing in the region quickly disappears making it difficult to retain and attract teachers, hospital workers, and safety officers at the very time the need for their services increases with population growth.

The scale of the current oil and gas impacts and the prospect of even greater energy impact through the development of oil shale give us reason for concern. Our region already has first-hand experience with the negative impacts of a “boom and bust” related to Oil Shale development in the early 1980s as well as the significant impacts created by rising energy prices today. This experience shapes our perspective on energy development issues. Consequently, the Mountain Mayors, encourage state and federal officials to consider the following guideline and course of action in relation to Oil Shale:

Oil shale development should be one component of a long-term, comprehensive Energy Plan that considers the costs and benefits of non-renewable fossil fuel energy production to the benefit of citizens beyond a short-term production boom. Such a plan would place equal, if not more, importance and investment in the development of renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, biofuels) production and energy efficiency programs as fossil fuels. We have yet to see such comprehensive energy plan or be involved in its creation despite the overwhelming need.

Leasing of public lands for Oil Shale should occur after research, development, and evaluation is complete. The oil industry has been developing technologies to convert oil shale into liquid fuel for decades, but has yet to develop a commercially viable process. There has also been little evaluation of the impact these technologies and processes will have on local communities or the regional air and water resources. Technology is has proved to be the limiting factor to commercial oil shale development, not access to public lands.

There should be increased mitigation of the impacts related to Oil Shale development. A recent report commissioned by the Associated Governments of Western Colorado (www.agnc.org) found that current energy development (natural gas) already strains local governments’ ability to provide important infrastructure needs, including emergency response, schools, and health facilities and that additional oil shale development would increase these demands. Oil shale development plans should include a more comprehensive mitigation and funding process to ensure local communities can manage the resulting impacts.

The people most affected by Oil Shale Development, the residents of Western Colorado communities, should have an ongoing and meaningful role in the decisionmaking on how and when oil shale is developed. The communities and residents of Western Colorado are already shouldering a significant burden in regard to energy development. Consequently, we believe, local elected board and citizens should have a voice in decisions of how energy development occurs.

Our region is willing to do more for energy independence and national security, however, our efforts and the subsequent impacts should be part of a larger, more comprehensive plan that recognizes the realities of fossil fuel development and consumption and takes us further along the path toward creating new energy economy.

The Mountain Mayors understand the value and national importance of the natural resources that exist in Western Colorado and support responsible development. However, we strongly urge that the preservation of the social, economic, and environmental values that sustain the quality of life in Western Colorado be integral to all decisions related to expanded energy development within our region.

Sincerely,

The Mountain Mayors

PDF version with signatures and attachment

Back to top

Resolution on Energy Development

This resolution was endorsed at the Nov. 10th, 2006 Mayors Meeting. Therefore number 10 was suggested by the Glenwood Springs City Council and approval by the mayors at their Feb. 2nd, 2007 meeting. The resolution has been adopted by the City and Town Councils of Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale, De Beque, Glenwood Springs Grand Junction, New Castle, Parachute, Silt, Snowmass Village, and Rifle.

Energy Resolution 2.05.07.pdf with adoption dates

A resolution of (Local Jurisdiction) in support of a comprehensive statewide energy plan and mitigation of the impacts of oil and gas devElopment:

Whereas, Western Colorado and Garfield County holds significant oil, coal, and natural gas reserves that are currently at the center of extensive exploration, research, drilling, and pipeline construction; and,

Whereas, these natural resources represent a valuable economic opportunity to the oil and gas companies, associated businesses, and communities of the region; and,

Whereas, the supply of natural gas is limited and the technology for oil shale is still developing; and,

Whereas, there is tremendous pressure from national policy and fuel markets to develop these resources quickly; and,

Whereas, although the oil and gas industry is a welcome addition to our regional economy and community, the development of finite oil and gas resources have had and will continue to have profound fiscal, social, and environmental impacts on the health and welfare of the communities in our region; and,

Whereas, our region already has first-hand experience with the negative impacts of a “boom and bust” related to energy development in the early 1980s.

Now, therefore, let is be resolved that:

(Local Jurisdiction) supports policies at the local, state and federal levels to fully capture the benefits and mitigate the impacts from the extraction and development of oil, natural gas, and coal resources.

Let it be further resolved, that (Local Jurisdiction) supports the following actions and policy changes:

Developing a long-term, comprehensive State Energy Plan that considers the costs and benefits of non-renewable fossil fuel energy production to the benefit of citizens beyond a short-term production boom. Furthermore, a comprehensive state energy plan should would place equal importance and investment in the development of renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, biofuels) production and energy efficiency programs.
Increasing local input and mitigation power in the oil and gas review process since the land use implications of oil and gas development can have significant impact on neighboring properties, county roads, demand for services, and the health and safety of county residents.
Improving the balance of representatives on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) to include non-industry perspectives such as human services, environmental health, and local governments.
Balancing the interests of surface and mineral owners by increasing bonding requirements of oil and gas developers to better protect surface owners from and mitigate for surface disturbances from drilling and accessing drilling sites. The State should also create a process for resolving surface and mineral owner disputes.
Establishing a County auditing program to ensure that industry accurately reports production and pays the appropriate taxes (in contrast to real estate taxation, where the County Assessor informs a home owner what their home is worth and how much tax they must pay, the Oil & Gas industry informs the County Assessor what their product is worth and how much tax they will be paying the County.)
Updating the Energy Impact Fund formula so that a greater percentage of these funds go directly to impacted counties and communities.
Increasing the limit of the Environmental Response Fund above its current level so more funding is available to investigate, prevent, monitor, and mitigate conditions that cause, or threaten to cause, significant adverse environmental impacts related to oil and gas operations rather than excess funding going into the State’s General Fund.
Adjusting the severance tax (on oil, natural gas, and coal) and /or eliminating the property tax deduction for severance tax payments to better reflect that value of the severed resource, the impact to public infrastructure (roads, schools, water, air, public health) within the State of Colorado and local communities, and to prepare for the time when these non-renewable resources are exhausted. (The severance tax in Colorado ranges from 2 percent on gross income from mineral extraction of less than $25,000 to a flat fee of $10,750 plus 5 percent of gross income above $300,000. Under current law, companies may deduct their property taxes from severance tax payments. As a result, the effective severance tax rate is 1.8 percent - the lowest among surrounding states. The severance tax rate in Wyoming and New Mexico is 6%.
Creating a Permanent Trust Fund at the local and /or state, level to address the long term impacts of the oil and gas development. (For example, Wyoming, which has fewer students than Denver alone, has about $1 billion in its trust fund for schools, while Colorado has $300 million.)
Protecting the waters of Western Colorado from adverse impacts of Stormwater Discharge by supporting the current practice of having the Colorado Water Quality Commission regulate storm water discharges from oil and gas operations that affect one acre or more of land instead of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and by providing adequate funding for state and county level inspectors.

INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED THIS ___ DAY OF_____________, 2007.

(Local Jurisdiction)

BY: _____________________________________

_________________, Mayor

ATTEST:

__________________________________

_____________________, Clerk

Energy Resolution 2.05.07.pdf with adoption dates

Read a news article on the City Council of Glenwood Springs adopting the resolution.

Back to top

State Issues

State Issues

Letter to Governor Elect Ritter

At the Nov. 10th Mayors Meeting, Mayors wanted to a draft letter to Gov. Elect Ritter and his transition team to consider Western Slope issues when they select members of the Ritter cabinet, especially the directors for the Department of Local Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Transportation. This is the resulting letter:

November 15, 2006

Dear Governor Elect Ritter,

As Mayors of Western Slope communities, we want to congratulate you on your election as the next Governor of Colorado. This is an exciting time for the State of Colorado and we look forward to working with you to achieve the Colorado Promise.

To this end, we want to encourage you and your transition team to consider a number of issues and characteristics when selecting members of your cabinet, particularly the Directors for the Department of Local Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Transportation.

As you know the Western Slope of Colorado is one of fastest growing areas of the state. It is currently facing enormous development pressures from oil and gas development as well as residential and commercial development. As Mayors, we have first-hand experience with the impacts this rapid development is having on people, communities, and our public infrastructure (i.e., roads, air quality, housing affordability, and human services).

For Western Slope communities and the State of Colorado to fully benefit from this growth and development, there are a number of critical issues that need the attention of your administration and the Directors for the Department of Local Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Transportation. Some of these issues include:

Allocating of energy impact funds so more funding stays in areas of greatest impact;
Setting and enforcing of air quality and water quality standards;
Including headwater communities in all state water discussions ;
Developing funding strategies to finance affordable housing as well as transportation improvements (trails, transit, and roads); and,
Increasing local input into the regulation of oil and gas development.

To help address these and other issues, we, the mayors of several Western Slope communities recommend that you consider the following characteristics and experience in your choice of Directors for the Department of Local Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Transportation. We believe these directors should have experience:

Working with Western Slope communities and issues;
Serving as an elected official or town / county manger or regional manager;
Fostering communication between state and local governments;
Employing innovative "out-of-the-box" thinking while working with practical realities; and
Creating “win-win” collaborative solutions.

Although, you have chosen wisely in your transition team members, because of the scale of the issues facing our region, we want to encourage you to add a Western Slope perspective to your team either in the form of a representative or by talking with us during this transition period.

We look forward to further discussing with you the challenges and opportunities before many Western Slope communities and how state departments can be partners in creating solutions that benefit Western Slope communities as well as all Colorado residents.

We wish you success as you transition toward your role as Governor of Colorado.

Sincerely,

Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valley Mayors

PDF version of letter with signatures

Back to top