The proponents of Amendment 60 say it would address a wrong perpetrated on Coloradans in 2007 when Democrats, in control of the legislature and governor’s mansion, enacted the “mill-levy freeze.”
The legislation kept property-tax rates from decreasing, thus adding hundreds of millions of dollars to state coffers that otherwise would have gone back to property owners.
“The mill-levy freeze was an unconstitutional tax increase that amounts to more than a billion dollars that was taken from taxpayers without our approval,” said Natalie Menten, campaign coordinator for CO Tax Reforms, the group supporting Amendment 60.
But opponents of 60 say it would go much further than repealing the mill-levy freeze.
It would reverse elections across the state where voters opted out of revenue limits imposed under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. Voters in 76 percent of cities, 81 percent of counties and 98 percent of school districts have voted to opt out of, or “de-Bruce” from TABOR limits.
“The will of the voters would be ignored with hundreds of local elections since 1992 overturned,” said Dan Hopkins, spokesman for Coloradans for Responsible Reform, the coalition of more than 600 groups opposing Amendment 60. “Fire districts and other local entities will be trying to provide 2010 services under 1992 budgets.”
The amendment also would cut local property- tax rates in half over 10 years, with the state expected to backfill the difference — an estimated $337 million in the first full year.
Property taxes for an average homeowner in Colorado would fall by $87 a year, while those of businesses would fall on average by an estimated $1,181.
But when fully implemented, Amendment 60 would require the state to increase its funding for K-12 education by $1.5 billion. The state now is struggling to maintain funding levels for public schools, which saw a 6 percent net reduction in state support in the current budget year.
With revenue in the current budget year now projected to be nearly $257 million below previous estimates, schools may see more cuts.
Supporters say schools wouldn’t lose any revenue.
“State aid is already required by law to replace 100 percent of school tax-revenue impacts,” proponents argue on their website. “Amendment 60 reinforces that existing requirement by saying ‘State aid shall replace that revenue yearly.’ “
But opponents say there’s no way schools wouldn’t be hurt, considering the overall impact Amendment 60 would have on the state budget.
“Proponents claim somehow the state will make up the lost revenue for schools, but that’s not possible,” said Hopkins.
Amendment 60 would also require public “enterprises” such as the University of Colorado and Denver International Airport to pay property taxes, with the amounts they pay offset by decreased property taxes for other taxpayers in a county. University officials say they’d have to increase tuition to cover the costs.
Finally, Amendment 60 would create a special right for property owners who own property in multiple jurisdictions to vote on property-tax issues. Under current law, a property owner can vote only in the jurisdiction that is his or her primary residence and in special-district elections if the person owns property in those districts.
