I am writing to you today about Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101. Because the most recent polls have shown there is still a large part of the population who is undecided about these measures, I would like to take some time to explain what they are before telling you why our Board of Trustees opposes them along with so many other groups in Colorado.
Often we get caught up in making sure our opinion is heard before we explain the issue at hand which ultimately leads to confusion and doubt. The goal of this letter is to give you a better understanding of what Amendments 60, 61 and 101 are as well as why we feel these would be catastrophic to the services provided through your tax dollars.
Amendment 60 will reverse legislation voters approved that gives local governments the ability to keep property taxes above set limits, and use that money to provide voted-on services such as fire and police protection, road maintenance and sewage systems. It will also cut local property tax used for public schools’ operating expenses in half over ten years. The amendment calls for replacing this source of funding with state funding, but does not detail a plan about where in the state’s budget this will come from. This amendment would also require publicly-owned property to pay property taxes.
I can understand the allure of lower property taxes, however this comes at an alarming cost in the form of essential services that would be reduced or eliminated completely as a result of the state’s new responsibility to come up with half of public schools’ operating expenses.
Supporters of the measure argue that funding for schools is not reduced, because the state will be paying for it. However, what they don’t explain is that this money has to come from somewhere, and it will have to come from other state and local services. The amount of money needed to fund half of schools’ expenses is about the same as what the state currently spends on courts, prisons and human services.
Essentially, the state would have to choose whether it wants a school system, or courts, prisons and human services. I realize that this seems drastic, but it is the truth of the matter. Amendment 60 would also require the Town to pay property taxes on water, electric, and drainage facilities. Again this money has to come from somewhere, so the Town would have to raise rates and fees for these services to pay for the property taxes.
Amendment 61 would prevent state government from borrowing money or taking out loans of any kind, and prevent local government from doing so without a public vote. It would also require taxes to be lowered once the loan is repaid, regardless of whether tax dollars were used in repaying the loan.
State and local governments use loans similarly to you and me when wanting to buy a house or car, except they are purchasing bridges, roads and water pipes. If they are not able to take out any loans, many of these projects won’t be completed at all or they will take several years to save for before purchasing since loans are no longer an option. I understand the fear of over borrowing and leaving debt for future generations, but this amendment takes things too far the other way so that current taxpayers may never benefit from a facility their tax dollars are saved to construct.
From our town perspective we currently maintain a debt to assessed valuation of 3.14 percent. Proposition 101 would reduce state income tax to 3.5 percent, car ownership taxes to $2 for new cars and $1 for used cars and reduce car registration fees to a flat $10 – the same as it was in the year 1919.
This may seem to be the most alluring measure of all three to taxpayers, because it is a difference in your taxes that you can clearly see. However, it is also the most dangerous as money from income tax, vehicle ownership tax and registration account for 23 percent of the state’s general operating budget, and will reduce the town of Frederick’s budget by 42 percent.
This means services that have already been reduced because of economic downturn will have to be cut even more. Roads and bridges that already need work will fall further into disrepair. Snow won’t be plowed in the winter, and parks won’t be mowed in the summer. Again I realize this seems like an unreal amount of cutbacks, but this is the reality of what this measure will do to local governments all over the state if it passes.
If the results of these measures seem scary individually, the effects triple collectively. They would put Colorado into an unequaled recession. I feel so strongly about the negative effects of these measures that I would like to offer you all the opportunity to email me at edoering@frederickco.gov if there are any questions you still have after reading this that I can help answer.
We need to band together to make sure these measures are voted down in November in order to keep Colorado on the path to becoming stronger economically.
Eric E. Doering is Mayor of Frederick. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
