File Photo by PHILIP B. POSTON/Sentinel Colorado
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a developing story and will be updated.
AURORA | An Aurora resident has filed an emergency court request in an effort to force the city to provide more state-mandated arguments against three local November ballot questions that would raise tax revenue for city projects.
The motion, filed in Arapahoe County District court, was filed Sept. 29 by Jeff Brown, an Aurora voter.
Brown’s complaint is that the city’s election-law mandated explanation and arguments for and against the ballot measures are insufficient. The summaries, and pro and con statements, often called “TABOR opposition summary,” are part of voter-guide “blue books” offered to all voters in the state.
City officials said Friday that the city’s policy is to not comment on pending litigation.
City council in June unanimously approved three bond measure questions for the November ballot, asking voters for a sales tax increase to fund $264 million in transportation, public safety and city facility capital improvement projects.
Lawmakers agreed to ask voters to approve what would amount to a 0.325% sales tax increase, or three cents for every $10 in purchase.
The proposals would fund 65 projects across three areas, including transportation, public safety and city facilities, which includes parks, recreation centers and libraries. Some of the major projects include the replacement of the Peoria Street bridge, construction of a new fire station, library and recreation center, improvements to police and fire facilities and park renovations.
Brown said the city is permitted 500 words for pro and con assessments of the ballot questions and the 90 words they city used to spell out arguments against ballot questions 3A, 3B and 3C are insufficient.
The Sentinel learned of the lawsuit late Thursday and city officials were not immediately available for comment.
“This is not a request that the court decide whether the tax measures are good or bad, nor am I asking that my comments be published verbatim,” Brown said in a statement to the Sentinel “The issue is whether the City substantially complied with Colorado’s requirement to summarize relevant opposition comments.”
Brown said he first saw the local TABOR election requirements from the city on Tuesday as part of voter material supplied by Adams County.
The city’s published “con” statement outlines a variety of arguments against voting for the measures.
“Opponents state that the proposed sales tax increase would add to residents’ financial burdens amid rising costs for housing, food, fuel, utilities, and property taxes. Some commenters argue that infrastructure costs should be shared more by developers and facility users through higher development or user fees,” Brown said in a statement, quoting the “con” arguments. “Others favor private investment, public-private partnerships, and economic growth to expand Aurora’s tax base rather than relying o n tax increases. Additional concerns include city spending priorities, transparency and accountability, the public-engagement process, library and facility investments, infrastructure planning, and whether the proposed projects represent the city’s highest priorities.”
Brown argues that arguments against the measures should be far more substantive.
His court query says the city missed what he believes are three “materially distinct arguments” not mentioned:
• A long-term city infrastructure funding problem. Aurora has identified more than $2 billion in priority infrastructure needs, while the projects funded by the three measures represent only about 13% of those needs.
• Measuring and addressing Aurora’s retail-tax-base performance. “The opposition comments called for updating Aurora’s decade-old retail-activity-per-resident benchmark, publishing that benchmark regularly with the City budget, and establishing a measurable objective of reaching at least the per-resident average of Colorado cities.”
• Regional draw and visitor spending as an alternative revenue strategy, arguing that Aurora can expand its retail tax base by attracting outside spending through private investment, public-private partnerships and destination entertainment.
Brown said Arapahoe court officials have not responded to his filing, made Tuesday.
He is representing himself in the matter and said in his statement he created the filing using ChatGBT, an artificial intelligence agent.
Court Documents
Click here for the petitioner’s motion
Guy’s a nut. He rails against the city council on Nextdoor like a broken record. Not so much a keyboard warrior as nails on a digital chalkboard. Can someone give him a life?
No argument. Civic engagement has been effective therapy for both my OCD and anger management — issues that are a result of a 2015 brain injury.
Speaking at council meeting’s also therapuetic– my stutter is indeed getting better!
You got a problem with me focusing boosting the tax base and quality of life in Aurora? Then articulate why we should pay a higher tax rate — vs drawing visitors to Aurora to spend on merch, overpriced drinks and our wonderful food?
BTW come out behind your alias next time. Or are you 12?
“City officials said Friday that the city’s policy is to not comment on pending litigation.” Except of course when they do, when it is self-serving. I would like to see this “policy”. When was it written? When adopted, and by whom? Maybe the Sentinel can do a brief story on the history and provenance of this “policy”.
When I read the requester’s arguments, they seemed to make sense. Since the previous counsel focused their time on avoiding the public, making up conspiracy theories, and reducing tax inflows by tearing up the Occupation Privilege Tax without providing any replacement strategy, this council needs input so they can meet the growing issues the last council refused to deal with. I submit that fees could be raised at the same time sales tax is increased. I am not against development, but it must be smart. Water usage and electric grid usage must be evaluated as well as quality of life for residents. I am also not set against modest tax increases, but it also must be smart. Revenue to any government is always a challenge after conservatives leave power. As a former accountant, we must realize that revenue must be a part of the question, but analyzing expenses must also be paramount. The GOP mantra of “no new taxes” does not fit growing obligations required by a rapidly growing area. One size does not fit all. It’s a lazy answer. Real information should be followed by real work!
Kudos to Mr. Brown. He has for years made his argument on fiscal responsibility by the City but he does more than howl at the moon, he took it upon himself to take action instead of just spewing words.