But it’s gonna take money, a whole lot of spending money,
It’s gonna take plenty of money,
To do it right, child…
— ‘Got My Mind Set On You,’ recorded by George Harrison
On Friday, we briefly discussed the pending ballot measure, Initiative 93 — a complex measure that would amend the Colorado Constitution while also changing certain state statutes. The full text of the measure can be viewed here. As a result of qualifying for the ballot, the name of the measure was officially changed to “Amendment 73.” (You can read an explanation for the name change on the Ballotpedia website.)
As mentioned, this measure increases Colorado income tax for tax filers earning more than $150,000 a year, and also on net corporation profits. According to interviews published this month in the Reporter-Herald, all of the funds would be held in and spent from a dedicated “Quality Public Education Fund.” Each school district would have discretion in how it wants to spend its own funds.
It appears that the money would: increase the annual per pupil funding to no less than $7,300 in all schools statewide; increase programs and funding for special education by at least $120 million; and for gifted and talented programs by at least $10 million; and for English proficiency by at least $20 million; and for preschool by at least $10 million. It would also increase state funding to pupils eligible for free and reduced lunch, and would fund full-day kindergarten statewide.
Over the short haul, Amendment 73 seems to lower property tax rates, but it would also freeze those rates at the new level — meaning that, if property values increase, so would property taxes. Forever. There is no sunset date built into the measure.
There’s another curious twist, for local voters. This proposed $1.6 billion state-wide tax increase seems to duplicate some of the features in the ‘mill levy override’ tax increase measure currently under discussion by the Archuleta School District (ASD) — specifically, full-day kindergarten funding, but more generally, the provision of additional funding that could be used for increasing staff salaries.
Which is to say… if Archuleta County voters were to approve the ASD mill levy override, and if Colorado voters simultaneously approved Amendment 73, then our local school district would find itself with two new funding streams, to fund essentially the same core needs. (The ASD ‘mill levy override’ has a seven-year sunset, however.)
But maybe only public schools would benefit from the increased taxes, over the long haul? Like we said, it’s a very complicated ballot measure, and I can’t claim to fully understand it. It’s possible that Amendment 73 will create problems for non-school governments. According to Larimer County assessor Steve Miller, it’s one thing to raise income taxes on the very wealthy, but the measure seems to create complications within Colorado’s property tax system — a system that funds numerous and various types of government entities in Colorado.
When the Gallagher Amendment passed in 1982, its intent was to provide property tax relief to homeowners, and to put a heavier burden on businesses and vacant land. The amendment fixed the non-residential property assessment rate at 29 percent and established a floating residential rate, setting a constant statewide ratio in the total property taxes collected statewide: 55 percent non-residential and 45 percent residential.
What the text of Amendment 73 fails to do, says Miller, is exempt itself from that “Gallagher ratio.” It’s a bit unclear whether school district mill levies will be the only property tax-funded rates affected by the amendment’s assessment reduction.
“We have a habit in Colorado of sticking stuff in the Constitution that doesn’t belong there,” Miller said in the above-mentioned Reporter-Herald interview.
From that article:
Though schools use about half of all property taxes collected, the rest are split between counties, cities, water districts, fire districts and other governing structures. If the amendment passes, these entities would potentially see their funding reduced, Miller said.
The proposed fixed residential assessment rate for school districts also proves a problem as property values increase in certain parts of the state, but not others, Miller said.
“Our property values are going up, and our median value is over $400,000,” Miller said of Fort Collins. “The problem with setting a statewide residential assessment rate is that we do OK here … and there’s extra money so the county and [local school districts] can maintain their budgets. But, that’s just not true in rural Colorado. It just isn’t.”
And, the fact that the measure is a constitutional change rather than a statutory change will make it extremely difficult to adjust things, later. Changing the formula in the future would require another Constitutional change, approved by 55 percent of the voters.
At any rate, it appears that, here in Archuleta County, we will have two shots at increasing our tax payments to increase public education funding: a local measure, and a state-wide measure.
But these are not our only opportunities to contribute more money towards government services. The Secretary of State also received two citizen petitions this month, aiming to increase funding for “transportation.” Those would be Initiatives 153 and 167, now renamed “Porposition 110” and “Proposition 109” respectively.
Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams announced on August 23 that Initiative 153 had gathered enough signatures to make the November ballot. That measure would increase the states’ sales and use tax rate by 0.62 percent — from 2.9 percent to 3.52 percent. The measure would allow the state to borrow up to $6 billion for various transportation projects; repayment of the bonds could amount to nearly $10 billion.
This is now officially named “Proposition 110.”
The previous day, the Secretary had qualified Initiative 167, which would require the executive director of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to issue Transportation Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANs) in a maximum amount of $3.5 billion — with a maximum repayment cost of $5.2 billion. The proceeds must be used exclusively for road and bridge expansion, construction, maintenance, and repair on the 66 particular projects identified in the measure. This is now “Proposition 109.”
We’ve all heard the Trump administration’s promise to address America’s failing infrastructure — our failing roads, our failing bridges, our failing dams and water systems and sewer systems, our failing public buildings, our failing railways and ports. As I recall, the promise amounted to about $1.5 trillion. Sad to say, that’s probably a drop in the bucket in terms of addressing our overall infrastructure needs.
We’ve built a transportation system, and other expensive systems, that we cannot afford to maintain. Or should we say: systems we have chosen not to maintain, and that we’ve allowed to deteriorate.
I guess we figured our kids would fix the problems, after we retired?
Thus far, the US Congress has earmarked about $20 billion for infrastructure, across the entire nation. That’s about 1 percent of the program promised by President Trump when he ran for election… and only about twice the amount that would be authorized by Propositions 109 and 110, just for the state of Colorado.
Does Colorado have a better infrastructure plan? And do Propositions 109 and 110 constitute part of that “better plan?”
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.