Give the voters of Telluride a voice in the approval of major development projects.
Let The People Decide is Up and Running
Big news for Telluride and the surrounding areas:
Our proposed amendment to the Telluride Home Charter to require a vote on future major Town projects is officially headed to the November ballot, and now it’s time to spread the word.
The recent Telluride Daily Planet article gives a good overview of the amendment and is worth a read. If you have not already done so, please click below to see the full text of the proposed amendment.
👉 Check out our Facebook page:
acebook.com/letthepeopledecidetelluride
👉 Follow us on Instagram:
As we moved quickly to get this amendment approved for the ballot—just about a week!—We’ve heard some people wonder how it would actually work in practice.
A Home Rule Charter is like a town’s Constitution. Just like the U.S. Constitution, it lays out the big ideas. The details—how things actually happen—get worked out in the Municipal Code. If voters approve this amendment, the Town Council will then decide the best way to put it into action.
The recent Telluride Daily Planet article on the amendment expresses the concern of some of the Council members about the vagueness of some of the terms.
To help everyone understand the vision of how we suggest it to work, we’ve drafted some suggested Municipal Code updates that could serve as a starting point for the Town if our measure is successful.
👉 Click below to read the draft suggestions
Question: Why is this measure necessary if Colorado law already requires voter approval for the Town to raise taxes or incur debt?
Our state constitution does require that any public entity seeking to raise taxes or incur long-term debt (more than a year) must place such a proposal to a vote of the people.
Question: So if this is the law, how did the Town finance up to $25 million bond debt on VooDoo for the 27 residential units without voter approval?
There’s a special legal trick that the courts allow. When the Town sells bonds (borrowing money) only against a specific project, and not to be paid from the Town’s budget, the courts say the Town doesn’t need to ask the people to vote on it.
​
However, to secure this money, the bondholders (those who purchase these bonds) require that the Town agree to a concept known as a “Moral Obligation”. This means that even though the Town isn’t legally required to pay back the bonds if the project doesn’t make enough money, the Town’s leaders can choose to pay it if they want. But, they don’t have to.
​
If the project doesn’t make enough money to pay back the bonds, the Town has two choices:
-
Use its general funds (the main money the Town has) to pay back the bonds, or
-
Let the bondholders take control of the building to sell it and get their money back. If they do that, the bondholders might say the Town was “immoral” for not paying, and then the Town might never borrow money this way again.
Because of this loophole, the bonds are not considered as a long-term debt for the Town’s main budget, so the courts say the voters do not need to approve it.
​
Our proposed change (amendment) wants to fix this. It would require that any project costing more than $10 million, regardless of funding source, must be approved by a vote from the people.
Have you had the pleasure of speaking in front of the Town Council, which often feels that its "super power" is letting anyone say anything they want, and not listening in any manner? Well, you are not alone as WE hear you.
​
Planning does not have to be done in this way, and there is a better path. When large-scale development is considered by the Town, either through paying for it directly or zoning to allow large commercial development, the voters deserve not only their "three minutes" at a meeting, but a vote on whether large projects are good for the community.
​
This is where the Amendment comes in. For any project where (1) the Town is paying all or part of the cost and the budget is over $10 million, (2) where Town amends zoning or a PUD to allow commercial development over $20 million, or (3) provides water to areas that are not annexed into Town, they would have to get voter approval.
​
Give the power back to the people. Support our Amendment.
While affordable housing is needed in Town, cost should be considered as well. Did you know that each of the 27 units costs more than $1,000,000?
​
However, since the $25 million in bonds taken out to finance the project are against the project itself, no voter approval was required under the law. The voters should approve projects of this size, not just the Town Council, which had at least one of its members move into a highly subsidized apartment after voting for the project.
