Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks staff to prepare EMS General Improvement District ballot language options, debates TABOR waiver wording
Summary
Commissioners directed staff to prepare ballot language and two options for an Emergency Services General Improvement District (GID) levy, including one with language to waive statutory property‑tax growth limits (TABOR/debrucing). They asked for final language and budget estimates ahead of a September deadline.
The Board heard a work session Aug. 19 on proposed ballot language for a Clear Creek County Emergency Services General Improvement District (GID), directing staff to prepare two ballot options and to return with final text and budget figures before a September deadline.
Staff presented draft language describing revenue uses: maintaining fire authority staffing and apparatus, sustaining emergency medical services and ambulance response, and ongoing training, equipment and station needs. Commissioners asked for a version that also clearly identifies a potential specific investment (third ambulance/EMS team) as a likely next step in the event the levy passes; staff agreed to incorporate that detail in outreach and the explanatory materials.
A central point of discussion was whether to include language that would waive statutory property‑tax growth limits (commonly described as TABOR/debrucing language). Some commissioners argued inclusion is routine and clarifies the county’s authority to retain growth in assessed value; others warned that adding the waiver language could create political risk and complicate voter support. After discussion the board directed staff to prepare both versions: (a) single‑question levy that includes the debrucing waiver language; and (b) a two‑question approach that asks voters first to approve the levy and second to approve a TABOR waiver for future assessed‑value growth, so voters can choose separately.
Staff noted the county must meet an administrative deadline in early September to place finalized ballot language on the ballot and will provide costs and model revenue estimates for the two options. Commissioners also instructed staff to refine the ballot bullets and plain‑language explanatory material (the Blue Book language) and to return with the finalized text and fiscal modeling at the next meeting.
No final vote was taken; the board set direction for staff and asked that the county present both options and associated budget implications for a final decision before the ballot deadline.
