An important question with high-stakes implications continues to hang over the legislature: Did Gov. Bill Ritter improperly freeze property tax rates in 2007 to generate more revenue for schools?
This question must be a real stumper. It was sent to the Colorado Supreme Court on an expedited track in September, yet here it is six months later and the court remains silent.
Since the court allowed the freeze to remain in place while the matter is under deliberation, Colorado has been spending money for months that it, perhaps, shouldn’t be spending.
If the Supremes rule against Ritter, and the money collected under the frozen rates has to be repaid to taxpayers, it would be extremely bad news for state lawmakers trying to carve nearly $1 billion from state spending over the next 15 months.
Lawmakers in 2007 approved a bill that locked most school districts’ property-tax rates at current levels, allowing local school districts to collect more tax money. The state, in return, could use the money it saves for other purposes. A district judge, however, ruled last May that the freeze, which generated more than $117 million in 2008 for schools, violated the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.
Since the property taxes affected by the freeze were for calendar year 2008 — to be paid this year — an adverse ruling by the court last fall would have allowed for mill levies to be reduced in January and, thus, the state could have avoided collecting the $117 million — even though as much as half had already been spent.
The silence from the Supreme Court also is frustrating an effort to reform a central and bedeviling aspect of the state’s budget.
Democrats believe they can fix the Arveschoug-Bird 6 percent spending limit without a vote of the people. Opponents say such a move is illegal and vow any legislative fix will be decided in court.
So House leadership wants to send an interrogatory letter to the Supreme Court asking whether the legislature can legally remove the cap.
But House Speaker Terrance Carroll tells us he is hesitant to send another legal question regarding yet another budget fix to the Supreme Court while lawmakers await the court’s ruling on the tax freeze.
We can understand the Democrats not wanting to establish an in-box at the high court labeled “Is this legal?” It’s also understandable that legislators don’t want to pass another bill affecting the state’s finances with the extra worry it could be reversed.
So with an economy in recession — and the strain that places on government budgets and programs — the Supreme Court’s delay seems irresponsible.
