Local measure · Larimer County
Thompson Crossing Metropolitan District No. 2 6EThompson Crossing debt authorization
In plain words
- Authorizes up to $16 million in general obligation debt, maximum repayment $36 million, from property taxes approved in 2001.
- Funds a 10-foot paved trail, street, water, sewer, drainage, park and safety projects and refinancing.
- Maximum net effective interest rate 5.25%; title states the average mill levy would not increase.
Our summary of the official materials and local reporting.
What your vote means
YES
Authorizes the debt.
NO
No authorization.
Our plain-words summary.
Why people want it, and why others object
Why supporters want it
- TABOR notice comment: supports a 10-foot trail and refinancing at lower interest rates. source: larimer.gov
Why opponents object
No public statement found.
Who backs each side
No public record found of a campaign committee or campaign money for either side.
In each side's own words where we could find them, quoted or summarized with a link to the source. We don't endorse either side.
Official ballot wording
Official ballot wording, word for word (tap to open)
Word for word from the Larimer County sample ballot (PDF ).
Thompson Crossing Metropolitan District No. 2 Ballot Issue 6E
WITHOUT INCREASING THE DISTRICT'S AVERAGE PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, SHALL THOMPSON CROSSING METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2 DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $16 MILLION, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $36 MILLION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING: - A NEW MULTI-USE 10' PAVED TRAIL ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE DISTRICT - LOWERING THE INTEREST RATES ON OBLIGATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO STREETS, WATER, SANITARY SEWER, STORM DRAINAGE, LANDSCAPING, PARKS AND RECREATION, SAFETY PROTECTION, TRANSPORTATION, AND SECURITY; SUCH DEBT TO CONSIST OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 5.25% PER ANNUM; SUCH BONDS TO BE PAYABLE FROM PROPERTY TAXES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AT THE DISTRICT'S 2001 ELECTION; AND SHALL ALL SUCH REVENUES AND ANY EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH REVENUES AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE BONDS CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST
Latest news
Recent reporting from a range of outlets, newest first. We link to it; we don't endorse it.
No articles collected yet for this measure.
What people are saying
Official campaign accounts on each side, and public posts. Links only: nothing here loads from social media sites. We link to posts; we don't endorse them.
No official campaign accounts listed yet.
No official campaign accounts listed yet.