Mountain
Mayors
| Letters of
Support and Resolutions
|
|
|
| |
Nov. 4,
2008 Ballot Questions
PDF
version with signatures
|
Mountain Mayors
An
Alliance for Cooperation & Action
October 30,
2008
Dear Fellow
Citizens,
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
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
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
Contact / Coordination
Colin Laird
Healthy
Mountain Communities
P.O. Box 1582, Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: 970.963.5502
Email
Back to top
©2010 Mountain Mayors
|