sample ballot - Larimer County

Nov 4, 2008 - '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 ...
204KB taille 3 téléchargements 342 vues
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