We concluded Part Two with an exchange between Archuleta County Commissioner Ronnie Maez and County Attorney Todd Weaver, about educating the public and about whether Archuleta County is “de-Bruced”. As many Daily Post readers know, TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights) is an amendment to the Colorado constitution, approved by the Colorado voters in 1992, which aims to limit the growth of government spending.
From the Colorado General Assembly website:
Specifically, TABOR allows [state and local governments] to retain and spend an amount based on the prior fiscal year’s actual revenue or limit, whichever was lower, grown by Colorado inflation and population growth and adjusted for any “voter-approved revenue changes.”
The amendment was written and promoted mainly by Douglas Bruce, a Colorado Springs lawyer and real estate investor originally from California. Mr. Bruce included in the amendment the ability for local voters to voluntarily remove TABOR limits for a district, either temporarily or permanently.
A vote to remove TABOR limits — either temorarily or permanently — is commonly referred to as “de-Brucing”. Some local districts in Pagosa have been permanently ‘de-Bruced’ including the Pagosa Fire Protection District, the Upper San Juan Library District and the San Juan Water Conservancy District.
Archuleta County was ‘de-Bruced’ in 2006, for a period of 5 years, with voters promised better road maintenance. In 2011, when the County asked the voters to make the ‘de-Brucing’ permanent, the voters overwhelmingly rejected the idea, by a 3-to-1 vote.
This means that, when property valuations increase (and when, as a result, property taxes increase) our Archuleta County government must lower its ‘mill levy’ to keep its revenues within the TABOR limit. A huge property tax increase will greatly benefit our Fire District, our Library, and certain other districts, but it will not benefit the Archuleta County government to the same degree.
With that in mind, the conversation at the Board of County Commissioners’ June 13 work session bears repeating.
After mentioning the need for educating the public about property tax protests, Commissioner Ronnie Maez turned to County Attorney Todd Weaver.
“Even I… I mean, are we [the County] de-Bruced? Are we de-TABORed? Or are we under TABOR? That’s a huge question.”
Attorney Weaver:
“According to CCI (Colorado Counties Incorporated), we are fully de-Bruced.”
Commissioner Maez:
“So we are fully de-Bruced. So from my understanding, I don’t remember the county voting to de-Bruce.”
Attorney Weaver explained that, according to CCI, the County was de-Bruced in 2010.
Apparently, our County commissioners had doubts about Attorney Weaver’s explanation, because two of them contacted the Daily Post that same day, to let me know that additional research had revealed that, in fact, the information from CCI was wrong and Archuleta County revenues are still limited by TABOR.
I will admit to feelings of discomfort on June 13, when I heard the folks who run our County government express confusion about TABOR. We would probably hope that, if anyone understood our government’s financial limits, it would be the government itself. Fortunately, that particular confusion got resolved quickly.
At the work session, Commissioner Maez continued sharing his thoughts about the (shocking?) property valuation increases announced by the County Assessor last month. He noted that the two years used by the Assessor to define property values (July 2020 through June 2020) were exactly at the epicenter of the COVID crisis.
“In those two years, property values increased because people were escaping the city and what they had to experience in the city. Cashing out all their 401Ks and bidding on houses. There were bidding events, you know. The realtors were making a killing on it.
“That’s what drove up [property values]. It’s not the County; it was not the Commissioners. It was the economics. A situation where people were trying to escape the city, buy second or third homes, Short-Term Rentals; all of that drove the market up.
“A lot of times, the economy sets the standard, so it will come back down. It’s just that these next two years are going to sting on property taxes.”
Will the taxpayers see benefits from the higher taxes? As noted, certain local districts will be able to keep their (50%? 80%?) increase in revenues.
But not Archuleta County. Sure, Archuleta County will get the blame. (The higher values were, after all, calculated by the County Asssessor.). But TABOR limits the County to a much lower revenue increase. The local government that is least trusted and most criticized — especially for its failure to properly maintain our road system — will least benefit from the hot real estate market during 2020-2022.
Worse yet, TABOR rules will cause the County’s mill levy to decrease, perhaps significantly. If Commissioner Maez is correct in his prediction, property values will decline at some point in the future, and the County government could find itself with less revenue than they were collecting in 2019.
In spite of everyone paying higher taxes next year, the County might be looking at lower revenues, over the long term. Thanks to TABOR.
The community would be better educated on these matters, in Commissioner Maez’ ideal world. (A sentiment I agree with.)
As mentioned on Friday in Part Two, Archuleta County is seeking public input on what might be a rather important, and timely, matter. If you visit their Survey Monkey Page (by clicking here) you can answer “Yes” or “No” to a single question.
What’s the correct answer?
Unfortunately, the County does not provide us with any facts, or any reasons why we might vote “Yes”… or “No”.
We are left, in this survey, with nothing but our gut feelings, about what might be a very important question.
Unfortunately, this is a common problem with local government. We are often asked to make decisions about taxes and spending without sufficient information — pro and con — to help guide our vote.
This survey could have been an opportunity for the County to educate us about the complexities of property valuation and property tax allocations.
In this case, a wasted opportunity.
Then again… would we trust the information our government provides?
Another “Yes” or “No” question.