Parts One and Two of this editorial series presented my subjective view of the candidates for Archuleta County offices, from a news reporter’s point of view.
One other important item specifically regarding the future of our local community, will appear on your ballot. That would be Ballot Issue 1A… a permanent increase in our sales tax rate in Archuleta County, from 4% to 5.5%. In other words, a 37.5% increase in the rate.
The money might be spent on “roads”. But then again, it might NOT be spent on roads. (See today’s interesting opinion piece by Rachel Suh.)
But before we dig into this tax increase proposal (and discuss alternatives) I’d like to touch briefly on the statewide ballot issues, based on the information provided in the ‘Blue Book’ — the State Ballot Information Booklet. You may have received your Blue Book already; if not, you can download a digital copy here. (English version). The Blue Book is also available in Spanish, here.
Amendment D would modify the Colorado Constitution to deal with the assignment of judges to the newly created 23rd Judicial District. (I recommend a YES vote.)
Amendment E would modify the Colorado Constitution to extend a property tax exemption to Gold Star spouses. (I recommend a YES vote.)
Amendment F would modify the Colorado Constitution to allow manager and operators of non-profit Bingo games to be paid. (I have no recommendation. Would seem to depend on your feelings about gambling in general.)
Proposition FF would increase Colorado taxes by $100 million to provide healthy meals for public school students, by limiting income tax deductions for household earning $300,000 or more. (I have no recommendation. Would seem to depend on your feelings about the government’s definition of ‘healthy meals’.)
Proposition GG would require additional information to be shared on ballots, when a change to the state income tax rate is proposed. (I recommend a YES vote. More information can’t hurt.)
Proposition 121 would reduce the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%. (I recommend a NO vote. This change would greatly benefit the very wealthiest Coloradans, at the expense of our poorest citizens.)
Proposition 122 would allow people to grow and share (but not sell) psychedelic mushrooms, as well as create state-regulated centers where people could make appointments to consume psilocybin, the hallucination-inducing compound derived from psychedelic mushrooms. The idea is to create natural medicine centers where people would consume mushrooms and plant-based psychedelics on site. The measure does not allow for retail mushroom sales, so it’s not modeled after Colorado’s marijuana industry. (I recommend a YES vote.)
Proposition 123 would specifically dedicate a portion of Colorado income tax revenue to housing programs, and remove the TABOR limitations on that revenue. (I recommend a YES vote.)
Proposition 124 would increase the number of liquor licenses in which a person my hold an interest, gradually increasing the number from the current number of ‘3’ to a total of ’20’ by 2036… and no limit on the number by 2037. (I have no recommendation. Depends on how you feel about a possible statewide liquor store monopoly by 2037.)
Proposition 125 would allow grocery stores, and convenience stores, to sell wine, if they already sell beer. (I have no recommendation. Would seem to depend on your feelings about alcoholism as a social problem, and your feelings about freedom and liberty.)
Proposition 126 would allow more convenient consumption of alcoholic beverages. A YES vote allows third-party companies to deliver alcohol from grocery stores, convenience stores, liquor stores, bars, restaurants, and other liquor-licensed businesses, and makes takeout and delivery of alcohol from bars and restaurants permanently available. (I have no recommendation. As with Proposition 125, would seem to depend on your feelings about alcoholism as a social problem, and your feelings about freedom and liberty.)
The local tax issue, this year, is Ballot Issue 1A.
I’ve been studying this issue since June, when County Manager Derek Woodman first introduced the idea of an additional 1% added to the existing County sales tax rate. (The percentage later grew to 1.5%, for reasons that were never made clear.) Mr. Woodman began his presentation to the joint Town-County work session thus:
“We have the possibility, on a one-percent sales tax increase, would generate approximately… uh… a little over $4 million. And then, moving forward with that, both the County and the Town certainly have topics that I think would be — should there be the desire and the wherewithal to move forward on it — the topics would be clearly identified and moved forward.
“You know, one of the topics at the County is, you know, on employee sustainability, and ensuring we have good quality staff, and that they are compensated appropriately.
“But certainly there’s other topics that are — I don’t want to use the word, but — ‘hot’ topics, that are in need, for both of our government entities…”
The Archuleta County government has a number of serious financial problems that could conceivably be mitigated by extracting $6.5 million in additional taxes — or more, annually — from local residents and visitors.
They’ve built a series of new and remodeled facilities over the past four years — a new jail, a new Courthouse, a remodeled Sheriff’s Office and a new Department of Human Services (DHS) building — and they already have plans drawn up for a new $4.8 million ‘Transit Center’… and a new Administration Building — cost unknown. Government building are not cheap. Ask any well-heeled building contractor.
As a result, the commissioners had to cut the property tax allocation for R&B (Road and Bridge) from the 25% of revenue, down to 5% of revenue in 2020, and even less in 2021 and 2022, while boosting spending in the General Fund from 70% to 95%. Here’s a chart from the official 2022 Budget Presentation. (The 2023 Budget Presentation deleted this chart completely.)
But Mr. Woodman may have another reason for mentioning ’employee sustainability’. When the Board of County Commissioners were provided a windfall of ARPA funds last year — about $2.7 million, aimed at addressing COVID issues — two of the commissioners, Warren Brown and Alvin Schaaf, decided to spend $110,000 on additional employee raises.
Perhaps they were not thinking about the future? Like, where would they get that $110,000 in 2023 and 2024 and 2025… when the ARPA funds ran out?
Maybe… like, from the taxpayers… as part of a sales tax increase?