Durango voters last week received the 2025 Municipal Election Information Booklet in the mail.
As part of the election, residents will vote on Ballot Issue 2A, which proposes extending a half-cent sales tax for 30 years. If approved, half the revenue would finance capital improvements – such as a new city hall – while the other half would go toward acquiring and maintaining land for public parks and other public-use facilities.
The initiative, along with pro and con statements submitted by community members, appears in the election booklet.
Opponents of Ballot Issue 2A said the measure had a “hidden agenda” and the city could use the revenue to fund Downtown’s Next Step, a proposal to widen sidewalks, extend curbs at intersections, improve underground infrastructure, and make other changes intended to slow traffic and improve safety.
But city spokesman Tom Sluis said the statement that revenue from Ballot Issue 2A could be used to fund Downtown’s Next Step is false. The city cannot direct any funds from 2A toward the Next Step project, he said.
“The ballot language says that half the money goes for parks, half the money goes for debt,” Sluis said. “And then the very next sentence, it says that debt is $61 million for the PD City Hall project.”
Opposition statements were submitted by Barbara Bell, Christina Turnell and John Simpson, who had varying critiques of the proposed tax extension.
Simpson was the only one who voiced concern that tax dollars could go toward Downtown’s Next Step. He said the ballot language uses the word “include,” which gives the city wiggle room to use the money for other capitol improvement projects – despite promises to the contrary.
The ballot language reads, in part: “Fifty percent to finance capital improvements, including (emphasis added) the payment of the debt authorized by this question.”
“It ‘includes’ the payment of debt, so that 50% can go to any capital project that’s out there,” Simpson said in an interview with The Durango Herald. “This council may say, ‘No, it's not going to Next Steps,’ but nothing is there preventing future councils from changing that position.”
If residents wonder why the city distributes official election materials that may contain inaccurate or misleading statements, the short answer is simple: it is required to do so.
Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights includes strict transparency measures and mandates the city to distribute election materials about tax increases.
“As far as the pro and con statements, it’s pretty simple,” Durango City Clerk Faye Harmer said. “State law requires that we collect pro and con statements, summarize them in 500 words or less, and publish them.”
Cities cannot edit the statements for accuracy, a rule that has drawn criticism for years – and Ballot Issue 2A is no exception.
Any registered Durango voter may submit comments, provided they do not include profanity or mention private individuals or groups.
Harmer said the city announces the public comment period months ahead of the election.
“Once we get them, we send them to our election attorney, who is an outside bond counsel, and they summarize them. Then we send them off to the printer,” she said.
Comments must be submitted 46 days before the election, and the city must summarize and return them no later than 42 days before the election, Harmer said.
Election notices state that comments are not fact-checked, but the disclaimer can be easy to overlook as readers flip through the booklet.
Still, “state law must be followed, and we are mandated to produce this pamphlet following the stipulations set by state law,” Sluis said in an email to The Durango Herald.
jbowman@durangoherald.com
