Ballot question: Are five heads better than three?

By Dan MacArthur
Correspondent

What would Larimer County voters get should they agree to spend another quarter-million dollars "hiring" two more county commissioners?

They certainly would get more debate with five commissioners at the conference table rather than three. Some regard that as a good thing while others see it simply slowing down the process with more blather.

More commissioners also would lead to better debate because five heads are better than three, some contend. Others counter that it would only further complicate discussions.

Proponents believe a bigger board would lead to better decision-making with three votes required for a majority rather than two. Critics contend it would result only in more unnecessary government.

The ultimate question of whether more commissioners would result in better representation remains a matter only voters can decide when they select one of three options for expanding the number of commissioners from three to five.

Before they get to that question, however, voters first will have to determine whether they're willing to raise property taxes by 0.082 mills to pay the $250,682 estimated cost of the two new commissioner positions. The county calculates that cost at about $1.50 a year on a house valued at $230,000.

If the property tax proposal fails, the current system of three commissioners elected at large by all voters in the county remains in place. If the tax passes, the reorganization proposal receiving the most votes would take effect.

Critics such as Gina Janett insist the associated tax increase is a "poison pill" added specifically to ensure defeat of the proposal. A former Fort Collins city council member, she co-chaired Citizens for 5 Commissioners, a group that in 2002 collected 9,500 petition signatures calling for the five-commissioner issue to be put before voters. Petitioners were led to believe the county commissioners would place the measure on the ballot, but they did not.

Janett insisted the county should be able to finance the increase in commissioners with existing revenues. "It's a governance issue and it should not be presented to the voters as a tax issue," she said.

County officials have denied that charge, however, contending that it's appropriate for any expansion to be supported with additional tax revenues - particularly in a difficult budget year such as this when employee layoffs already are all but certain.

Consequently, Janett said the group's steering committee has decided to oppose the version now before voters. In addition to its objections to the proposed tax increase, she said the group is concerned that by offering three options instead of only two, one of them could take effect without a clear majority of votes.

"We think it's a bad way to way to ask the question," said Janett. "My hope is the next board (of county commissioners) will do it right."

She said the group still prefers its original proposal of expanding the board to five commissioners who reside in their respective districts and are elected by voters in those districts. Janett said electing the commissioners by districts rather than at large brings government closer to the people and makes politics more accessible to candidates without the resources or desire to run a countywide campaign. Further, she said, commissioners elected by residents of their districts would feel a greater connection to those constituents.

That option, however, was the only one of the four potential expansion options the commissioners declined to put before voters. They opposed election by districts, contending it would lead to greater parochialism in an era when a regional perspective is required.

The three options on the ballot would establish:

• Five commissioner districts with commissioners residing in their respective districts but elected at large by voters in the county.
• Three districts with commissioners residing in their respective districts. The remaining two could live anywhere in the county. All would be elected at large.
• Three districts with commissioners residing in their respective districts and elected by voters living in those districts. The remaining two commissioners could live anywhere in the county and would be elected at large.

There is no apparent organized advocacy for any of the options. Each carries its own particular implications. But no matter how it's sliced, Fort Collins --with almost half the county's nearly 270,000 population--would gain representation under any of the proposals.

Just how much depends on how the districts are divided.

As drawn now, the three commissioner districts zigzag east and west across the county creating southern, central and northern sectors. The southern one encompasses the Loveland-Estes Park area and the other two split Fort Collins. Under the three-district proposals, the current districts presumably would be retained.

Under the five-district proposal, according to scenarios in a Colorado Division of Local Affairs study, Fort Collins would be covered by two districts, Loveland and Estes Park by two and the northern portion of the county by one. As such it offers the greatest potential for greater urban representation.

"The concern seems to be urban versus rural representation on the BCC," said county manager Frank Lancaster. "The only thing it would guarantee is urban representation. It would not guarantee rural representation."