The lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Denver alleges that the San Francisco-based company markets its product as a “loan alternative” and then uses a variety of mechanisms to maximize its return at the homeowners’ expense. The attorneys are proposing that the complaint be certified as a class-action lawsuit, saying the company could have 300 or more similar agreements with Colorado homeowners.

Unison gets around requirements for licensing, disclosure and interest rates applicable to mortgage and consumer loans under Colorado law by calling its product an “option contract,” the lawsuit said. However, Unison’s home equity agreement functions more like a consumer loan or mortgage and should be regulated as such, the attorneys argue.

Centennial residents Katharine and Charles Kane signed an agreement with Unison in 2018 after receiving a flier promoting the home equity agreement, according to the lawsuit. They received an initial advance of approximately $87,956 in exchange for granting Unison a 70% interest in the future value of their home.

Unison estimates the Kanes owe between $178,038 and $278,618 as of March 31, the lawsuit said.

“Our clients worked hard for decades to build equity in their home, and they entered into this agreement in good faith, trusting Unison’s promise of a simple, debt-free product,” Elizabeth Aniskevich, senior counsel at the law firm Singleton Schreiber in Washington, D.C., said in a statement.

Instead, the couple got caught in “a complex financial trap” that threatens their ability to retire, Aniskevich said.

Messages were left asking for comment from Unison.

The contract in question is a home-equity agreement, which said allows homeowners to access a lump sum of money by selling a portion of the home’s future value. Instead of monthly payments as with a traditional loan, people repay the investment when they sell, refinance or reach the end of the agreement’s term.

on Unison’s website says, “No monthly payments. No interest. No kidding.” According to the website, the company, which also offers equity home loans, has agreements with 17,000-plus homeowners across the country and the total value of homes it has invested in is $8.8 billion.

The Colorado lawsuit against Unison said the agreements people sign onto span nearly 100 pages and include multiple separate contracts, making it impossible for homeowners to understand their true obligations until payment is due. The company discounts the original value of the home, requires homeowners to pay all costs and fees during the term of the agreement and controls the home appraisal process, the attorneys asserted.

The Colorado lawsuit’s allegations are similar to those of represented by attorneys from its staff, the AARP Foundation and Singleton Schreiber.

The defendants named in the Colorado lawsuit are Unison Agreement Corp., Unison Investment Management and Real Estate Equity Exchange, the corporate parent of the other two companies.

The complaint alleges that Unison has violated Colorado’s consumer credit code, consumer protection act, mortgage lending requirements and reverse mortgage requirements. Attorneys want the court to void the agreements and declare that the contracts are mortgages or loans.

Medicare’s open enrollment starts Tuesday and runs through Dec. 7. can sign up for three months before and after their birth month, but most current recipients can only make changes to their coverage during open enrollment.

Insurance plans change, so recipients should look into their options and consider their needs each year, said Fonda Buckles, community resources manager for the Denver Regional Council of Governments’ area agency on aging. Of course, no one can know the future, but people covered by Medicare can reasonably expect to have more needs, and more health expenses, over time, she said.

“Typically, people are entering retirement, and they’re fairly healthy,” but the right choice then may not be the best one in a few years, she said.

Here is a guide to some of the biggest questions about Medicare’s open enrollment period:

What do I have to decide during open enrollment?

If you enrolled in traditional Medicare, your Part A and B coverage (which pay for hospital stays and outpatient care) stay the same from year to year. You could change your prescription drug plan, known as Part D, and your Medigap supplemental plan, which reduces how much you pay in out-of-pocket costs.

If you’re in a Medicare Advantage plan, which rolls up the four parts into one, you could switch from one plan to another.

You also could go back and forth between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage, but think carefully before you do. Insurance plans have to sell you a Medigap plan when you turn 65, but they could refuse or significantly increase the price if you decide to join later. That means, if you choose a Medicare Advantage plan where you don’t need Medigap, you could be left shouldering high out-of-pocket costs if you ever switch back to traditional Medicare.

What are traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage?

The federal government runs traditional Medicare, while private insurance companies run Medicare Advantage plans. Most Advantage plans , such as limited dental and vision coverage, but they also have more hurdles to accessing care, including the need to get an insurance company to sign off before patients can have certain treatments.

Broadly speaking, traditional Medicare offers greater flexibility, since members can see any provider in the country who takes it, while Medicare Advantage plans are cheaper, but have narrower networks that focus on one state or metro area, Buckles said. Which is more important will depend on each person’s health and financial circumstances, and whether they qualify for programs that lower out-of-pocket costs for low-income people, she said.

People who have traditional Medicare are responsible for 20% of the cost of their Part B care, which covers outpatient care and ambulance rides. Part B doesn’t have an out-of-pocket cost limit, so people who don’t have a Medigap policy to cover those costs could rack up thousands of dollars in bills, Buckles said.

“Even though it gives you a lot of flexibility… some people cannot afford that 20%,” she said.

Medicare Advantage may initially appeal more because it generally costs less and offers additional services, Buckles said. But recipients need to be sure that the extra services actually meet their needs and that they have thought about how narrow networks might limit them in the future, she said.

“It may not be as glamorous as they think,” she said.

What do I need to consider?

Colorado’s State Health Insurance Assistance Program advised recipients to think about whether:

• Their health needs are increasing
• They will need specific services that not all options cover, such as eye exams, dental work or hearing aid fitting
• Doctors, hospitals and other providers that are important to them are in their insurance networks
• Costs have gone up in their specific plan
• Their plans will cover care in other states or countries, if they plan to travel
• What their prescription drugs will cost under their current plan
• If they were satisfied with any experiences using their plan over the previous year

You can use to compare your options.

If a recipient only remembers to check one thing when comparing plans, it should be whether the plan covers all of the prescription drugs they need, said Kathy Madden, SHIP services and training manager at the Colorado Division of Insurance. If they remember to check two things, calling their doctors to make sure they’re in the plan’s network would be the second priority, she said.

“If not all your drugs are on the formulary, that’s not the plan for you,” she said.

What����ap changing this year?

People with Part D plans will have the option to spread their $2,000 maximum out-of-pocket cost evenly over a year. Typically, in insurance, people pay a larger share of their drug costs at the start of the year. Those payment plans aren’t automatic, though, so people need to apply with their insurance company, Madden said.

Other changes this year include eliminating the “donut hole” before “catastrophic” coverage kicks in for prescription drugs and allowing people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid to switch their prescription drug plan more often, Buckles said.

The refers to a gap where recipients were responsible for a larger share of their drug costs, Madden said. Next year, they will pay the same out-of-pocket rates until they hit the out-of-pocket maximum, she said. (Some people still could pay more than $2,000, if they take medications that their plan doesn’t cover.)

I’m worried about costs. Are there any options for me?

may cover premiums and out-of-pocket costs in Part A and B for lower-income people, but people need to apply with their county human services office to qualify, Buckles said. Exact limits vary by program, with the highest level of assistance available to individuals with incomes of less than $1,275 per month and couples with incomes less than $1,724, provided they also have limited assets.

A separate program, called , reduces prescription drug costs for individuals with incomes below $22,590 per year and couples with incomes below $30,660. Some people also can qualify for help with drug costs at higher incomes.

Where can I get help?

Generally, you want to avoid calling third party marketing organizations that flood the airways with ads featuring celebrities of a certain age, Madden said. They, like other brokers, can get paid by insurance companies, and may guide callers toward plans that aren’t right for them, she said.

“If you see Joe Namath or William Shatner… on a commercial, that’s something to steer clear of,” she said.

Colorado, like all states, has a State Health Insurance Assistance Program, mostly staffed by volunteers. Each county has a with trained navigators to help Medicare recipients think through their options. They don’t receive any commission if you choose a particular plan.

“Our job is to make sure you have the information to make a good decision and sleep good at night,” Buckles said.

If you don’t know who runs the program in your county, you can call 888-696-7213 for direction.

Medicare’s customer assistance line also can assist people, and picks up calls when the SHIP navigators are booked up during the last week of open enrollment, Madden said. Ultimately, people do best when they don’t wait until the end to consider whether they have a cheaper option or one that better fits their needs, she said.

“By then, SHIP is inundated,” she said.

Sophisticated overseas criminals are stealing tens of billions of dollars from Americans every year, a crime wave projected to get worse as the U.S. population ages and technology like AI makes it easier than ever to perpetrate fraud and get away with it.

Internet and telephone scams have grown “exponentially,” overwhelming police and prosecutors who catch and convict relatively few of the perpetrators, said Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention at AARP’s Fraud Watch Network.

Victims rarely get their money back, including older people who have lost life savings to romance scams, grandparent scams, technical support fraud and other common grifts.

“We are at a crisis level in fraud in society,” Stokes said. “So many people have joined the fray because it is pretty easy to be a criminal. They don’t have to follow any rules. And you can make a lot of money, and then there’s very little chance that you’re going to get caught.”

A recent case from Ohio, in which an 81-year-old man was targeted by a scammer and allegedly responded with violence, illustrates the law enforcement challenge.

Police say the man after wrongly assuming she was in on a plot to extract $12,000 in supposed bond money for a relative. The driver , dispatched to the home midway between Dayton and Columbus to pick up a package for delivery, according to authorities.

Homeowner William Brock was charged with murder in the fatal March 25 shooting of Lo-Letha Hall, but the scammer who threatened Brock over the phone and set the tragic chain of events in motion remains on the loose more than three months later.

Brock pleaded not guilty, saying he was in fear for his life.

Advantage scammers

Online and telephone rackets have become so commonplace that law enforcement agencies and adult protective services don’t have the resources to keep up.

“It����ap a little bit like drinking from a fire hose,” said Brady Finta, a former FBI agent who supervised elder fraud investigations. “There’s just so much of it, logistically and reasonably, it����ap almost impossible to overcome right now.”

Grifts also can be difficult to investigate, particularly ones that originate overseas, with stolen funds quickly converted into hard-to-track cryptocurrency or siphoned into foreign bank accounts.

Some police departments don’t take financial scams as seriously as other crime and victims wind up discouraged and demoralized, according to Paul Greenwood, who spent 22 years prosecuting elder financial abuse cases in San Diego.

“There’s a lot of law enforcement who think that because a victim sends money voluntarily through gift cards or through wire transfers, or for buying crypto, that they’re actually engaging in a consensual transaction,” said Greenwood, who travels the country teaching police how to spot fraud. “And that is a big mistake because it����ap not. It����ap not consensual. They’ve been defrauded.”

Federal prosecutors typically don’t get involved unless the fraud reaches a certain dollar amount, Greenwood said.

The U.S. Justice Department says it does not impose a blanket monetary threshold for federal prosecution of elder financial abuse. But it confirmed that some of the 93 U.S. attorneys’ offices nationwide may set their own thresholds, giving priority to cases in which there are more victims or greater financial impact. Federal prosecutors file hundreds of elder fraud and abuse cases annually.

The Federal Trade Commission says the “vast majority” of frauds go unreported. Often, victims are reluctant to come forward.

A 74-year-old woman recently north of Cincinnati was the victim of an online scam, according to her family. Authorities say they believe the woman was preyed on by a scammer, yet there is no record she made a formal police report.

“These people are very good at what they do, and they’re very good at deceiving people and prying money out of them,” said Fairview Township, Ohio, police Sgt. Brandon McCroskey, who investigated the robbery. “I’ve seen people almost want to fist fight the police and bank tellers because they … believe in their mind that they need to get this money out.”

A devastating scheme

Older people hold more wealth as a group and present a ripe target for scammers. The impact can be devastating since many of these victims are past their working years and don’t have much time to recoup losses.

Elder fraud complaints to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center , with losses increasing by 11% to $3.4 billion, according to a .

Other estimates put the annual loss much higher.

A 2023 AARP study calculated that Americans over 60 each year to fraud. The Federal Trade Commission, seeking to account for unreported losses, estimated fraudsters in 2022, including $48 billion from older adults. The authors of that study acknowledged a “considerable degree of uncertainty.”

In San Diego, 80-year-old William Bortz said criminals stole his family’s nest egg of almost $700,000 in an elaborate scheme involving a nonexistent Amazon order, a fake “refund processing center” in Hong Kong, doctored bank statements and an instruction that Bortz needed to “synchronize bank accounts” in order to get his money back.

Bortz’s scammer was relentless and persuasive, harassing him with dozens of phone calls and, at one point, taking control of his computer.

Even though he was the victim of a crime, Bortz struggles with self-blame.

“I understand now why so much elder abuse fraud is never reported. Because when you look back at it, you think, ‘How could I have been so stupid?’” said Bortz, who retired after a career in banking, financial services and real estate.

His daughter, Ave Williams, said local police and the FBI were diligent in trying to track down the overseas scammer and recover the money, but ran into multiple dead ends. The family blames Bortz’s bank, which Williams said ignored multiple red flags and facilitated several large wire transfers by her father over the course of eight days. The bank denied wrongdoing and the family’s lawsuit against it was dismissed.

“The scammers are getting better,” Williams said. ”We need our law enforcement to be given the tools they need, and we need our banks to get better because they are the first line of defense.”

The Justice Department contends industry needs to do more, saying the U.S. can’t prosecute its way out the problem.

“Private industry — including the tech, retail, banking, fintech, and telecommunications sectors — must make it harder for fraudsters to defraud victims and harder to launder victim proceeds,” the agency said in a statement to The Associated Press.

A way forward

Banking industry officials told a Senate subcommittee in May they are to stop fraud, “and some hold great promise.” The American Bankers Association says it����ap working on a program to coordinate real-time communication among banks to better flag suspicious activity and reduce the flow of stolen funds.

But industry officials said the banks cannot singlehandedly prevent fraud. They said the U.S. needs an overarching national strategy to combat scammers, calling the federal government����ap current efforts disjointed and uncoordinated.

Law enforcement agencies and industry need to join forces to fight fraud more quickly and efficiently, said Finta, the former FBI agent, who launched a nonprofit called the National Elder Fraud Coordination Center to cultivate better cooperation between law enforcement and major corporations like Walmart, Amazon and Google.

“There’s very, very smart people and there’s very powerful, wealthy companies that want this to stop,” he said. “So we do have the ability, I think, to make a greater impact and to help out our brothers and sisters in law enforcement that are struggling with this tsunami of fraud.”

In all, paid to Colorado lobbyists in the most recent fiscal year, which ended June 30 and included this year’s legislative session, slightly exceeded what was spent on on the state’s ballot in 2022. That annual lobbying tab has more than doubled since the 2012-13 fiscal year, and three of the five past years saw 10% annual bumps in spending, according to lobbying records maintained by the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

And as the spending increases, so does the attention put on lawmakers.

“The more money you have usually translates to a louder voice in politics,” said outgoing Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Democrat. “I think that’s true in elections, but it’s also true in the lobbying arena. But I don’t say that necessarily as a way to judge it — it’s just simply a fact of how things work.”

Both during and outside the 2024 session, which ran from January through early May, companies, trade associations, nonprofit advocacy groups, local governments and other outside interests spent the money to help advance policies they supported, to try to thwart those they opposed, and to influence changes to bills that would affect them directly. The spending isn’t a monolith, and the money often crashes against itself as competing interests try to sway lawmakers to the spenders’ desired outcomes.

But spending on lobbying highlights the growing stakes moneyed interests see in influencing policy one way or the other.

“Special interests are able to exercise an undue amount of influence on the legislators and the path forward for bills because they’re able to be on the ground, be in our legislators’ ears, build those relationships,” said Aly Belknap, the executive director of Colorado Common Cause, a government and ethics watchdog.

Though lobbying influenced hundreds of bills this year — and several during a short special session on property tax relief in November — five stand out for the amount of attention they received from lobbyists. They ranked highest in terms of the number of positions registered, with the outsized attention leading to varying policy outcomes:

• , which sought to establish new regulations aimed at reducing emissions of air pollutants, including by the oil and gas sector.
• , which proposed changing consumer protection law to make it easier for people to pursue claims of unfair or deceptive trade practices.
• , which aimed to spur more development of accessory dwelling units, like garage apartments and granny flats, on single-family properties.
• , which sought to eliminate occupancy limits on the number of unrelated adults who could live in a home, except for safety or health reasons.
• , which aimed to speed up the phase-out of the use of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” in products sold in Colorado.

Three of those five bills — on ADUs, occupancy limits and PFAS restrictions — became law, though not always before significant amendments reshaped them during the legislative process. The consumer protection bill, which came under heavy opposition, died in the Senate.

And the most-lobbied of the five, the air quality measure, was tabled by its sponsors as part of a much-heralded compromise package that left sponsors claiming victory, while giving special interests, including the oil and gas industry, cause to drop a threatened war at the ballot box this fall.

The number of positions registered on a bill is an imperfect measure of just how much work is being focused on the proposal, but it serves as a proxy for general interest. Sometimes a languishing bill gradually collects positions, while in other cases a single interest can file several positions, reinforcing or shifting its stance as negotiations progress. State reporting requirements do not include spending associated with individual bills.

PFAS bill illustrates shaping of legislation

Lobbyists are ever-present in the State Capitol whenever the legislature is in session. Sen. Lisa Cutter, a Jefferson County Democrat, jokes that during debate on particularly contentious legislation, she can’t leave the Senate chamber without stepping over a lobbyist — side doors included.

“I think it’s gotten worse and worse. I really do,” said Cutter, who was first elected to the House in 2018, when lobbying firms reported about $46.7 million in income — about two-thirds of what it is now. She was elected to the Senate in 2022.

Like many lawmakers, Cutter doesn’t see lobbying as a negative unto itself. But she received a front-row view of the activity this year when she ran Senate Bill 81. As passed, it adds to the products being phased out in Colorado for containing intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Starting in 2026, it bans the sale of some consumer products, like cookware and ski wax, with PFAS, and another class of products is banned starting in 2028.

The chemicals have been given the “forever” moniker for how long they take to break down in the environment.

Cutter’s bill initially set out to fully ban the chemicals beginning in 2032. But the opposition to that goal was fierce, and the full ban was taken out of the bill at its first committee hearing in March. Cutter told The Denver Post then that she hoped to bring back a full ban in the future.

She estimated that she worked with some 70 official stakeholders, or interest groups who directly helped shape the bill. That included meeting with experts flown in from overseas and others who wanted to make sure the bill was workable.

In all, more than 100 entities would stake more than 870 official positions on the bill. Most registered positions signaled that the interested party was monitoring the bill, or neutral, while about 240 were to show they were seeking an amendment. Another 190 positions were in outright support, while 75 indicated outright opposition.

Cutter said most lobbyists raised legitimate concerns about the bill’s timeline, which products were included in its ban and what businesses should do with existing inventory. Lawmakers tucked a half-dozen amendments onto the measure on its way to the governor’s desk.

Others doubled down on their opposition by intensifying lobbying efforts, Cutter said.

“It’s kind of complicated, right? There’s some really great lobbyists that do some really great work for their clients — and add to our understanding to create a bill that’s workable and makes sense,” Cutter said, adding that this bill was a good example of that.

“Then there’s the lobby and the special interests that spend a bazillion dollars — lots of money — to try to prevent progress and prevent what we all really know is the right thing to be doing.”

Through the sponsors’ work with stakeholders and lobbyists, that bill became law. But another environmental bill Cutter worked on, Senate Bill 165, had a less direct fate.

Stalled air quality measure became part of armistice

More than 140 companies and interest groups registered more than 950 positions on SB-165 — more than half in opposition. In taking aim at energy industry emissions, especially during ozone season, critics contended it would “halt oil and gas production for three prime construction summer months every year,” in the words of former Republican congressman Bob Beauprez.

The bill was one of four proposals aimed at curbing emissions, and they were seen as another front in the ongoing fight over oil and gas regulations.

The fight went beyond policy debates in backrooms and on chamber floors. Opponents targeted lawmakers with ads over the measures, and they threatened to launch defensive ballot initiatives that would go around the legislature, taking the matter directly to voters.

To calm the waters, Gov. Jared Polis and legislative leaders introduced a pair of bills in exchange for industry and environmental groups setting aside the ballot initiatives and lawmakers abandoning the four bills, including SB-165.

Soon after the announced cease-fire, Dan Haley, the president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, declared that “political and legislative stability and certainty is vital to our industry’s future success here, and we’re pleased to see our state’s political leaders share that vision.”

The group did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Conservation Colorado was on the opposite side and “deeply involved” in that fight, the group’s CEO, Kelly Nordini, said. The number of positions taken, lobbyists involved and reflected and amplified behind-the-scenes debates, she said, as broad coalitions formed to find ways forward on environmental protections — without immediately sparking new battles.

“I’ve been in and around the Capitol a long time now, 20-plus years. And I would say it was one of the most complicated and intense and impactful sessions — in a good way — we’ve had in a long time,” Nordini said.

Fenberg joined with Cutter on a bill resulting from the compromise that instituted per-barrel production fees on the oil and gas industry to pay for environmental projects and infrastructure, as well as to support transit.

Fenberg, the Senate president, said industry groups can see some bills as “an existential threat,” which may be reflected in their lobbying activity. And if a bill like SB-165 hangs on the vine, it gives people more time to weigh in — a potential boon for lobbyists so long as a bill has any chance of passing.

“For the most part, we’re talking about businesses, and they make an ROI calculation,” Fenberg said, referring to a return on investment. “Spending $10,000 or $20,0000 on a lobbyist, versus something (that) could cost millions — that’s kind of a no-brainer.”

He highlighted one likely factor in the surge in spending on lobbyists in recent years: Democrats winning trifecta control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s office in the 2018 election, a dynamic that’s now entrenched. Since then, lobbying income has increased by nearly 50%, according to secretary of state records.

“You’re going to see more special interests and more business interests spending money on lobbyists when there’s large Democratic majorities,” Fenberg said, noting the party’s reputation for pursuing policies aimed at consumers. “… I will also say, the large dollars being spent on lobbying is more a reflection of the business development of the lobby corps and less about the level of influence these clients are having.”

Consumer protection bill’s opponents win out

Despite their general orientation, Democrats’ majorities don’t always ensure the success of consumer-focused legislation.

This year, Rep. Mike Weissman, an Aurora Democrat, ran House Bill 1014, which would have lowered the standard for which private attorneys could bring claims under the Consumer Protection Act to challenge unfair or deceptive trade practices. Weissman, in an earlier session, had passed a bill to set that standard for district attorneys and the attorney general.

Current case law around the Consumer Protection Act requires that the plaintiffs in a lawsuit prove widespread injury to meet the standard of “significant public impact.” The 1998 Colorado Supreme Court ruling establishing the standard “essentially killed CPA claims in Colorado,” Weissman said, because it meant plaintiffs needed to prove more pervasive effects than they would reasonably know as affected individuals.

After passing the more liberal House by a wide margin, the bill died in a Senate committee. Some members expressed concerns that it would open the floodgates for legal claims and overburden businesses with litigation.

The bill drew the attention of energy companies, abortion rights advocates, homebuilders, the AARP, and others. In all, lobbyists for about 100 interests of all stripes registered more than 900 positions on the bill — more than half in explicit opposition.

Weissman said in a recent interview that this type of law was fairly niche, allowing for speculation about what it might do if passed. He called the proposal a “simple, but fundamental — and, I think, misunderstood — change to the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.”

For all the opposition and attention it received, he said, the proposal simply would have brought Colorado’s consumer protection law in line with the more consumer-friendly standard used in dozens of other states, including staunchly conservative ones like Texas and South Carolina.

While different parties objected for different reasons, Weissman sees the connecting thread as special interests circling the wagons to protect their entrenched economic and political power.

“It’s when industry can’t put a price tag on something that they freak out the most,” he said.

Weissman also serves as an example of how the policy fights in the lobby of the Capitol translate to political fights at the ballot box. He ran for a state Senate seat in last month’s primary, facing heavy opposition from dark-money spenders.

But he overcame the tsunami of outside money opposing him and won the primary.

Housing bills part of successful land-use package

The other two bills that ranked high in positions taken this year were focused on housing. They stood out because so much of that lobbying activity reflected a different tactic: Outsized shows of support to help them win passage.

Rep. Manny Rutinel, a Commerce City Democrat, said supporters of House Bill 1007, which prohibits residential occupancy limits — a measure that has particular effect in college towns like Boulder and Fort Collins — “overwhelmed” the potential opposition. More than 880 positions were taken on that bill, and nearly 500 indicated support. Supporters included public health advocates, environmental groups, anti-poverty coalitions and unions.

Lobbying reports for House Bill 1152, which generally requires Front Range local governments to allow homeowners to build accessory dwelling units on their properties, showed a similar outpouring of support over other positions lobbyists could take.

Both became law and were part of a package of bills aimed at land-use reforms in the state that met with success after failing in grand fashion last year. Some other components of that package came under heavy, and sometimes successful, lobbying as local governments and other interests sought to limit their impact.

“It’s important for folks to understand that lobbying is an important part of the legislative process,” Rutinel said. “Unfortunately, there’s a power imbalance, just given the wealth and political capacity of different interest groups. That said, people who are interested in fighting on behalf of marginalized or underrepresented communities are making sure we’re engaging in it.”

During Rutinel’s first session this year, he carried several of the bills with the most positions taken. For the most part, he chalked that heavy activity up to opposition from groups that rely on the status quo for profits.

In general, he said, when there’s a large lobbying presence, “it means you have to calm the potential fears of your colleagues.”

Sen. Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican and that chamber’s minority leader, prefers to see lobbying simply as advocacy, a less loaded term.

Lobbyists make up one more key body in policymaking, he said, and are just one piece of the overall picture of money in politics. He didn’t dismiss the amount of money being used to influence lawmakers, but he also highlighted the vast sums that flow into campaign coffers and dark-money groups that bombard the airwaves, and the overall influence of foundations that spend untold money to affect politics in the state and nationally.

“Developing good policy requires a clear vision into the actual consequences — not just the desired or intended consequences,” Lundeen said. “And we frequently hear that most clearly from the people and businesses most directly affected (through) their advocates, those folks in the lobby corps.”

The price of influence

Colorado law has stronger standards for transparency than many other states, though more work can always be done, said Belknap, the Colorado Common Cause leader. The group has championed campaign finance and transparency reforms for decades nationwide, including winning reforms to Colorado law.

“There’s definitely a rise in lobbying expenditures since those disclosure requirements began,” she said.

Lobbying does play an important role in the legislative process, Belknap said, but she also drew a distinction between grassroots lobbying from concerned individuals and big corporate lobbying.

The heavy spending has the effect of raising the price to play in the legislative process, she said, creating a challenge for grassroots groups to get involved. For example, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and Conservation Colorado each reported spending just over $100,000 on lobbying this past fiscal year, according to state records.

The Colorado Bankers Association was the most prolific single entity when it came to taking positions on bills this past session, including the five with the most attention laid on them.

In a statement, Alison Morgan, the association’s director of state government relations, noted that banks play a role throughout Coloradans’ lives and thus, it weighs in on “a variety of issues at the state and federal level.” Sometimes that’s just about signaling that it’s watching a bill or that it sees a single objectional provision tucked inside a larger proposal.

“CBA specifically focuses on creating a stronger economy,” Morgan wrote in a statement. It may oppose bills “that would negatively impact the economy and/or the financial well-being of banking customers and the communities which banks serve.”

Conservation Colorado prides itself on being one of the grassroots groups able to keep a day-in, day-out presence at the Capitol. It was also one of the most active interest groups on the five bills with the most lobbyist positions, having weighed in on all but Weissman’s consumer protection bill.

The positions don’t necessarily reflect the depth of involvement on particular bills, said Nordini, the head of the group. It took support positions on Cutter’s PFAS bill, for example, but left some of the detailed discussions to allies with more subject-matter expertise.

On others, such as the tabled air quality bill and related environmental regulations, Conservation Colorado was on the front line and, Nordini joked, “I have the scars to prove it.”

The work involves building relationships with lawmakers, building collective power through coalitions, gathering data and rallying individuals to testify about the impacts different bills are trying to address, she said. She counted this year’s session as among the most successful in recent history — and it certainly helps her cause that the House and Senate majorities share broad alignment on environmental interests.

After two-plus decades doing this work, Nordini said, she hopes it means something when Conservation Colorado weighs in.

“We lobbied because of the need to protect the public interest,” Nordini said. “And while we have a significant lobbying program and are the state’s largest environment program, we are quite outnumbered at the Capitol when it comes to lawyers and lobbyists and money for ads.”

The latest population data prepared for state lawmakers this month shows a sustained multi-decade surge in Colorado’s over-65 population. By 2035, the number of  over-65s, now at about 928,029, will reach 1.3 million — 20% of Colorado’s projected 6.8 million population — and outnumber the under-18s through 2060, according to the data.

This shift brings benefits of experience and wisdom in a state still slightly younger than the U.S. average but also intensifies challenges, ranging from dementia to wheelchair accessibility — as seen in and surrounding at the base of the Sangre de Cristo mountains. The average age here is 59, the oldest in Colorado and among the oldest in the nation.

Members of the , as old as 90, gathered in their basement below the town hall on a recent frigid morning for one of three weekly meals. Handmade Valentine’s hearts hung on the walls around a library, pantry, pool table, and bingo set-up with chocolates and teddy bears as prizes on display.

Most members regard Silver Cliff’s rural norms as healthy for senior living. They breathe clean air and see stars at night. “When you go into the stores, you know people,” said Janice Brunke, 81. Retired accountant John Stevens, 74, savors his escape from the noisy congestion he navigated in west metro Denver. “By the time you pulled out of your driveway, you were in traffic,” he said. “It’s not like that here.”

Only one of the 20 in the center used a cane. Site manager and chef Darcy Rhodes, 37, watched them standing in line for her Sloppy Joes and scalloped potatoes. “Anything with meat, they love,” she said. Meals she prepares also are delivered by volunteers to a dozen or so members who can’t make it to the center off Main Street. When winds rage down from the mountains and temperatures plummet, deliveries include emergency “blizzard boxes” of canned goods and other items sufficient for three days.

But streets in Silver Cliff and neighboring remain mostly unpaved and lack sidewalks — nearly impassable for a wheelchair. There’s only one doctor living in the county and no urgent medical care. The is stretched.

Low-income seniors in Custer County increasingly seek help handling home chores, getting to dentists and eye doctors, and arranging breaks for their caregivers. A waiting list of 50 for this county and three others is growing rapidly, said Tom McConaghy, director of the Salida-based , one of the 16 agencies around Colorado that coordinates public-funded senior care. Looming budget cuts mean services cannot be increased and most likely will be reduced, said McConaghy, a former police officer who recently testified in the state legislature.

“Having social connections is extremely important for an older population, and people tend to eat better when they’re not alone,” he said in an interview, warning against the “anonymity” in technology-driven cities.

“But we are behind the 8-ball. We are behind in preparing for the larger number of elderly residents we will see in the next 25 years. Why does this matter? I don’t want to see people go without food or live in unsafe conditions. These are people who worked very hard in their lives. We owe it to them to help meet their needs. It is a moral issue. Are we discarding older adults because they are no longer any use to us?”

“Struggling to handle what we have now”

At the , 60 to 80 new patients a month seek appointments, which typically aren’t available for three weeks. “We’ve had a huge influx of older people who moved from Texas and California,” manager Tammy Ahlers said in her office adjacent to a busy waiting room.

The clinic offers only general “family practice” care, but Ahlers said staffers face constant and increasing demands to handle emergencies.

She’s arranged for a bone specialist to visit the clinic once a week. Heart and lung doctors swing through the county every other week. “Telehealth” often proves insufficient.

For urgent stroke symptoms, chest pains, breathing problems, kidney dialysis, and radiation treatments, Custer County seniors must drive or seek emergency transport to medical facilities in Canon City, Pueblo, or Colorado Springs.

“Rural Colorado is not ready for a more elderly population. We’re struggling to handle what we have now. You would be taking a risk if you live in rural Colorado and have a health issue.”

RELATED: Where to find the oldest and youngest Coloradans

When Janice Brunke’s husband needed radiation treatments to be cancer-free, the two of them made the two-hour back-and-forth trip over the twisting Hardscrabble Pass to Pueblo 45 times, she said.

The nonprofit facility in Westcliffe offers 14 beds. But seniors with medical needs typically must be transferred to facilities in Pueblo and Colorado Springs, activities director Sherry England said. “A lot of them don’t want to leave. They have no choice,” England said, adding that there’s a waiting list for space in the facility and that survival depends on charitable donations.

A microcosm of challenges statewide

Struggles in Custer County increasingly are replicated elsewhere.

Statewide, waiting lists for meal delivery and transport have ballooned into the thousands. Overseers of the area agencies on aging estimated clearing those lists would cost an additional $20 million in funding — above the current total budget of around $46 million using state and federal funds.

In the eight-county metro Denver area, more than 3,000 seniors are on waiting lists for meals, said Jayla Sanchez-Warren, director of the , run by the . Beyond that, more housebound seniors are asking for rides to medical appointments, an unmet need that reverberates because appointments often must be canceled, leading to seniors skipping necessary health care.

“Let����ap say you just got out of the hospital and you cannot prepare your own food because you just had surgery. Normally, you could call and we would have a meal sent to you the next day. But right now in metro Denver, if you need a Meal on Wheels, you will be put on a waiting list,” Sanchez-Warren said.

Metro Denver services providers also are anticipating an accelerating rate of residents suffering from Alzheimer’s disease (estimated 76,000 over-65s diagnosed in Colorado) and other forms of , she said.

“This is going to be difficult. More people in nursing homes. More people living in isolation. More amber alerts for older adults. More ‘I’ve fallen and can’t get up’ calls to the fire departments. More people having a hard time just meeting their basic needs. Unless we understand this at a deeper level, it����ap going to be about surviving, not about thriving. I am sure we have had people fall through the cracks. There will be more and more people who fall through the cracks.”

Home-bound elders await food

The Adams County on Dec. 31 suspended meal deliveries. Sanchez-Warren and a colleague stepped in, drawing on county emergency funds the first week of February, and rounding up frozen food supplies. They headed to the plains towns of Bennett, Deer Trail, Strasburg, and Watkins. Thirty residents in this area were practically desperate.

“These folks really needed the food,” Sanchez-Warren said. “They could not prepare meals for themselves. They could not drive. We saw a lot of people on walkers and in wheelchairs. Some could not come to the door. We saw poverty.”

officials are pressing for increased funding because reduced meals, transport, and other services for seniors living in their homes could lead to shifting more elders into situations where they need skilled nursing medical care — likely in institutions, said Sara Schueneman, the AARP’s state director.

That’s ultimately more expensive for taxpayers, Schueneman said. And institutional living can increase disorientation and isolation.

“We’re already struggling with the health care industry not having enough workers,” she said.

“How are we going to support these vulnerable populations?”

Government agencies ramp up planning

Colorado government officials say they recognize a need to strengthen support for the state’s aging population.

The responded to Denver Post inquiries about preparations for the aging population with a statement that said state officials are “aware there are gaps in services.”

Finding ways to encourage and support in-home care workers and to expand socialization opportunities for older adults through day programs and shared meals is part of what must be done, the statement said.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has been working “to ensure that our state is the best place to live and age,” gubernatorial spokeswoman Shelby Wieman said.

Polis has prioritized investments in the direct care workforce, supported efforts to ensure housing and health care including affordable prescription drugs, and closed a tax loophole to eliminate income taxes on Social Security for Coloradans over 65. He also supports efforts to broaden a partial property tax exemption for over-65 residents so that older residents aren’t penalized for moving to smaller homes.

Over-75s surging

Colorado’s over-65 population has ranked among the fastest-growing in the nation, behind only Idaho and Alaska between 2010 and 2020, with over-65s increasing by 319,070 people. By 2030, the state’s latest demographic projections show, the over-65 population will increase by another 315,000 above the 2020 level. The shift is driven by Baby Boomers who flocked to Colorado in the 1970s and largely stayed in the state.

“Now as they are leaving the labor force, entering retirement, and entering an age cohort where we see transitions we are seeing a significant impact,” state demographer Elizabeth Garner said.

The fastest-growing segments of Colorado’s population are those between 70 and 74 (224,681), 75-79 (129,810), 80 to 84 (82,812), and over 85 (88,264), according to census data. State forecasts show the over-75 population growing by 68% over the 2020 level by 2030 and the over-85 population growing by 50%.

“This decade is when we will see the largest and fastest growth,” Garner said.

Around the state, the biggest increases in over-65 households will occur in the relatively young metro Denver area, according to data prepared for state lawmakers. is expected to change the most with its number of over-65 households increasing above the 2020 level by 26,180 before 2030, followed by Denver County (22,866), Arapahoe County (22,402), and El Paso County (20,913). That will bring Jeffco’s total of over 65 households to 90,414.

Moral obligation

Scrambling to minimize program cuts this year, lawmakers are considering a $5 million increase in the state’s contribution to funding the area agencies on aging.

“I mean, a wait list for ? That’s not the Colorado I want to live in,” said Sen. Jessie Danielson, D-Jefferson County, who sponsored that legislation and in recent years has championed other measures to protect seniors, such as first steps to combatting financial abuse.

“If people aren’t concerned, they should be. Colorado is aging more rapidly than most of the rest of the country,” Danielson said. “We’re not prepared for the needs of our community. We have an obligation to prepare as well as we can. I was raised with a belief that you respect elders. Older Coloradans built this place. This is their community. We should be grateful to them for the things they’ve done. Right now we are not prepared to support them in a way that allows them to age with dignity.”

Looming cuts

Meanwhile, Custer County elders bristled at the prospect of fewer meals and the camaraderie they bring.

Supervisors of their 53-member senior center pointed to continued population growth in the county and agency funding of only $300 a month, enough for food but not enough to cover their latest electricity bill. Back in 1990, the median age in Custer County was 38, state records show. But in recent years the number of babies born in the county each year has stayed below 50. And, of the 800 newcomers who moved into the county from elsewhere over the last decade, 62% were older than 55.

Losing the center would be horrible, members said. “We do have poverty in this county,” Cindy, 61, emphasized, asking that her last name not be printed for fear of an ex-husband in Texas. The three meals a week she eats at the senior center are her only proper meals, she said. From the pantry shelf, she grabs cans of chickpeas and other items to tide her over in her cabin south of town where she relies on burning wood for heat.

Bingo began in the basement. A Beatles tune played on the local radio. Shooting pool in the library, third-generation Wet Mountain Valley resident Dan Jones, 82, a priest clad in brown robes, said the two dozen churches in town may serve as a fallback for supporting the neediest residents.

He sank a yellow-and-white nine-ball in the corner pocket — and smiled. This senior center has served elders for 46 years, he said.

“It has been good getting to know each other here. That’s important for seniors. It has been a really good meeting place.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

But the measure is anything but simple. The complex ballot question also would tinker with state tax refunds, attempt to make local governments whole for lost property tax revenue and significantly boost education funding, which long has been shortchanged by lawmakers.

The many tentacles of the most prominent and wide-impact measure on the Nov. 7 ballot give opponents plenty to attack. If voters approve Proposition HH, they argue, property taxes still will go up next year — though not by as much as they would’ve otherwise — but now the state will hold back more from refund checks mandated by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. It amounts to an unnecessary grab at taxpayers’ wallets, they say.

RELATED: Colorado voter guide: Stories, explainers and endorsements for the 2023 election

The party in control of state government, led by Gov. Jared Polis and other top Democrats, has put all its chips on Proposition HH, which was referred to the ballot by lawmakers. If it fails, the Democrats have no politically easy options left to tamp down rising property taxes. There’s no Plan B, at least none that����ap been discussed publicly.

The state constitution’s voter-passed TABOR Amendment requires voter approval for any increases in tax collections, even without an outright tax increase. So a last-ditch effort by the legislature would have different stakes. Lawmakers likely would have to work within the confines of the existing state budget to provide any relief.

Amid the recent deluge of campaign ads and dueling messages, Proposition HH pits Colorado’s leading Democrats against a conservative-led opposition in an arena — the statewide ballot — that����ap given conservatives some of their only big wins in recent election cycles.

The measure comes three years after voters repealed the Gallagher Amendment, removing some safeguards that had shifted more of the burden for property taxes onto commercial property owners — but at the cost of leaving school districts underfunded. While a broader overhaul of the tax system was promised then, it hasn’t happened.

Left to decide on Prop HH are voters, many of whom are homeowners worried about the hit they’re facing when property taxes come due in the spring.

Property valuations have risen by roughly 40% at the median across the state, with larger swings in some places, including parts of metro Denver — and taxes largely will follow suit.

The mechanisms set in motion if Proposition HH passes would, in most cases, halve those increases. Supporters say that despite all the noise raised by opponents, that’s the most important potential impact.

“When you’re in charge, you have to solve problems, right? You have to govern,” said Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat and key advocate for the ballot measure. “You have to look at things from all the perspectives and do what you think … is the most responsible decision and path forward.

“When you’re not in charge, you can just throw grenades and say no and poke holes — and, frankly, spread mistruths about some things in order to get your way.”

Opponents also point to ways supporters’ ads oversimplify or distort things.

The battle has taken on a partisan tinge, though the lines aren’t always neatly divided by party. While the opposition spending has largely been led by the conservative group Advance Colorado, business groups and local government associations have lined up against it, too. Many local government officials are worried they won’t see enough promised supplemental money from the state to offset the hit they’d take if property tax increases are blunted.

“It����ap more the people who are supporting it who want to pitch it as a partisan fight, because they think that benefits them,” said Kristi Burton Brown, the former chair of the Colorado Republican Party and now a policy analyst for Advance Colorado. “… (There’s) quite a bit of bipartisan opposition. You can see that from a lot of local elected Democrats who don’t like it because they think it����ap the state coming in and controlling what happens in local property taxes.”

She highlighted opposition that includes the National Federal of Independent Business, the Colorado Association of Realtors and Democratic Sen. Joann Ginal of Fort Collins.

Proposition HH has won support from groups that include the National Education Association, Education Reform Now’s advocacy arm, the nonprofit Gary Community Ventures, the Colorado AFL-CIO union, the AARP and the Colorado Alliance for Retired Americans. The latter groups’ support is in large part due to HH’s proposed property tax relief for older people, including making the senior homestead exemption portable when changing addresses.

What Proposition HH would do

At its core, the ballot measure aims to soften the blow property owners are set to face early next year when tax bills come due. Tax bills are still expected to rise if HH passes, but not as sharply as they would without it.

To pay for the impact of scaling back those increases — and to raise significant money for education — Proposition HH would increase the TABOR amendment’s cap on state tax collections by 1 percentage point each year. That’s on top of increases normally allowed by inflation and population growth.

The state would be able to retain an estimated $170 million extra in the current fiscal year that it otherwise would have to refund to taxpayers. By the 2031-32 fiscal year, that annual amount is projected to grow to as much as $2.2 billion.

State government would send up to 20% of that money to local governments to offset their lost property tax revenue, and it would set aside up to $20 million for rental assistance programs to help residents who aren’t homeowners. But the rest — the vast majority — would go to education funding, rising to a projected $2.1 billion a year within a decade.

As for how would Prop HH would affect homeowners, their properties’ total assessed value would be reduced by $50,000 in the first tax year and by $40,000 in the next, with that adjustment lasting through 2032. It also would tick down the assessment rate, or percentage used to determine how much is owed. The measure also includes the extra provisions for older homeowners as well as reformulations for how non-residential properties are assessed.

The nonpartisan analysis in the state-produced Blue Book found Coloradans would save hundreds on property taxes in the next two years compared to the full property tax increases that would take effect without HH. The savings include about $167 for a residential property valued at $100,000, up to $400 for a $1 million property.

The Colorado Fiscal Institute, a left-leaning think tank that has backed the measure, found the biggest benefits go to lower-value homes. A home whose valuation increased from $300,000 in 2022 to $405,000 in 2023, for example, would see a property tax increase of about $100 under Proposition HH. But if HH fails, the homeowner’s tax bill would be about $415 more.

As for the impact on state TABOR sales tax refunds — the state’s main mode of returning excess revenue — low-income taxpayers, or those making less than $50,000 a year, would receive an extra $270 in their checks. That comes from a one-year flattening of refunds that would provide an estimated $898 to all taxpayers, regardless of income, rather than doling the money out based on six income tiers. Tax filers in the $50,000 to $99,000 range would see $60 more in their TABOR checks because of that change.

But some higher earners would receive less in their refunds, with people who report incomes of more than $278,000 seeing a decrease of more than $1,000 in their checks or credits.

Beyond next year, TABOR refunds likely would decline for all taxpayers under Proposition HH, depending on how the state handles them. Refunds also potentially could be eliminated in some years due to HH, depending on the performance of the economy — a dynamic state officials caution is hard to predict very far out.

“Worried about the confusing nature of HH”

Proposition HH has made some local government officials nervous, in part because there are eventual limits on how much assistance they’ll receive to offset reductions in property tax revenue.

The state’s three biggest advocacy organizations for local governments have come out against it — the Colorado Municipal League, Colorado Counties Inc. and the Special District Association of Colorado.

Colorado Counties Inc. voted most recently on its position. It wasn’t a unanimous vote, and critics point out that every county, regardless of size, had the same pull. But CCI President and Adams County Commissioner Steve O’Dorisio, a Democrat, said a supermajority voted to oppose it.

“A lot of folks said they’re worried about the confusing nature of HH, the unpredictability of the finances and the impacts to revenues,” he said. “Specifically, counties feel like they’re being asked to do more with less. Whether that’s the area of public safety — that includes jail standards and body cams and recruiting and retaining — to homelessness and housing. There’s a broad spectrum of challenges that we’re facing.”

The feeling isn’t shared by all county commissioners.

“This is the last, best shot for local governments to be kept as whole as possible,” said Clear Creek County Commissioner George Marlin, also a Democrat. He invoked the likelihood that voters will weigh in on a hard cap on property tax growth next year with Initiative 50, spearheaded by Advance Colorado.

“It����ap very clear that voters want to see something be done on property taxes,” he said, characterizing Proposition HH as an imperfect measure that’ll still help Coloradans. “A lot of people who want to see something done on property taxes need (that relief).”

The state’s nonpartisan analysis only tracks through 2025, before economic forecasters’ crystal balls cloud up. The business-oriented that right about then is when HH’s compounding 1% annual increase in the state’s TABOR cap would begin to widen.

“What the ballot measure should have really said is this: Are you willing to give up your TABOR refund check forever for … two years of this itsy-bitsy, minuscule, little property tax relief called the ‘decrease in your increase?’ ” state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican, said at a recent forum hosted by the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance.

The opposition’s ads have even declared that HH “ends TABOR tax refunds.”

But Fenberg, the Senate president, said refunds will still go back to taxpayers in good years, even if they may not receive as much.

“Whether you have TABOR refunds in the future is much more dependent on the economy than if HH is the law or not,” he said.

The left-leaning found that under one growth scenario, Colorado taxpayers could expect nearly $5,000 in TABOR refunds over the next decade if HH passes, down from $7,140 under current law. That difference is roughly in line with the Common Sense Institute’s predictions, which peg the gap at closer to $2,500 in that timeframe — though it raised the alarm that HH’s changes to the TABOR cap eventually could swallow any refunds.

Denver Post reporter Seth Klamann contributed to this story.

Past TABOR refunds

Colorado has been using direct sales tax refunds as one of the release valves on revenue caps under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights since 1997. The refunds reflect the state’s economic ups and downs, as well as Colorado’s temporary pause of the cap via the voter-approved Referendum C in 2005. They weren’t always used, and haven’t always been the sole method of delivering TABOR refunds. But here’s a brief history:

• 1997: $37-80 per taxpayer, depending on income level
• 1998: $142-$384
• 1999: $159-502
• 2000: $182-$574
• 2001: $144-$451
• 2005: $15 (for all taxpayers)
• 2015: $13-$41
• 2021: $37-$117
• 2022: $153-$468
• 2023: $750 (via the flat Colorado Cash Back program, which delivered 2023 refunds in fall 2022)

Source: Colorado Department of Revenue

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

The question, pitched by Gov. Jared Polis and fellow Democrats in the legislature to deal with expected tax hikes next year due to rising property values, is the biggest measure on Colorado’s ballot this fall. It’s drawing backing from liberal groups and unions as well as the AARP and the League of Women Voters.

But the complex measure’s potential impact on local property tax revenue, and next year’s state tax refunds, has drawn fire from the Colorado Municipal League, the National Federation of Independent Business and other groups. The CML represents the interests of cities and towns across the state.

That gives the conservative campaign leading the fight more ammunition as it attempts to defeat Proposition HH, putting state officials on the defensive.

RELATED: Colorado voter guide: Stories, explainers and endorsements for the 2023 election

Ballots for the Nov. 7 election will be mailed out by county clerks beginning Oct. 16.

Supporters reported about $854,000 in cash on hand to close out September, according to campaign finance reports due Tuesday. The Property Tax Relief Now committee has raised about $1.1 million total, largely from education organizations, Democratic donor Pat Stryker and the advocacy wing of the nonprofit Gary Community Ventures, a philanthropic organization formerly led by Denver Mayor Mike Johnston.

The major opposition group reported about $833,000 in the bank, out of $1.6 million raised in total. Most of its money, $1 million, has come from Advance Colorado, a nonprofit that backs conservative fiscal policy. Michael Fields, who leads the Advance Colorado Institute, also is the registered agent for the opposition group.

During the most recent reporting period, Sept. 14-27, the supporting committee reported raising about $325,000, nearly all from education groups. The No on HH committee brought in $500,000 from Advance Colorado, as well as a handful of small-dollar donations.

No on HH has spent more so far, including more than $500,000 on digital advertising just before the recent reporting deadline. The proponents, meanwhile, have not reported much spending yet — though that is sure to change as voters start flipping through Blue Books and receiving ballots in the mail.

Much of the money on both sides has come from organizations that aren’t required to disclose individual donors, keeping some sources hidden from public view.

The rundown on Prop HH

Proposition HH seeks to blunt the sharpest spikes in property taxes that are expected next year while giving local governments money to make up for property tax revenue they’d miss out on.

To pay for it, the measure would increase the cap on tax collections imposed by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights by 1 percentage point each year. That would increase the state’s budget by about $170 million this year — and up to $2.2 billion per year in a decade.

State officials would use up to 20% of the extra money to backfill the local governments for lost property tax revenue, and they would set aside up to $20 million for rental assistance programs to help residents who aren’t homeowners.

The remainder would go directly to school districts, to offset their lost property tax revenue, and to other education programs — totaling $125 million this upcoming fiscal year and potentially more than $2.1 billion a year within a decade, according to projections.

In another progressive tweak, lawmakers also incorporated into the proposal a one-time flattening of refunds that are due to taxpayers next year under TABOR. If voters pass Prop HH, all taxpayers would receive an estimated refund of $898, according to the Blue Book, versus the typical income-based refunds that send more money to wealthier Coloradans under the premise they paid more in taxes.

Battling campaign messages

Senate President Steve Fenberg highlighted the stakes of Prop HH in a statement provided by the supporting committee.

“Influential organizations … are rallying behind HH because they understand that a 40% (property) tax increase would be devastating for our economy, and especially for seniors, working families, and renters,” Fenberg said. “Proposition HH averts this crisis while also ensuring local schools, fire districts, and communities aren’t harmed — all while preserving TABOR refunds for the future.”

But it’s the future of TABOR that has raised conservatives’ ire.

Opponents argue Prop HH would be a tax increase, since it allows the state to retain more money. Under the direst of predictions, they say it would effectively erase state refunds over the next decade — and savings on property taxes wouldn’t make up the difference.

“The ballot language completely hides the fact that Prop HH would eventually end TABOR tax refunds permanently,” Fields, from the No on HH campaign, wrote in a text message. “The more voters hear about this measure, the worse it does. So we are working hard to make sure everyone hears about it.”

The ballot measure’s long-term effects on TABOR refunds and Coloradans’ overall finances have been a point of much consternation among backers and opponents.

The Colorado Fiscal Institute, a liberal policy think tank that recently endorsed the proposal, could still expect hundreds of dollars’ worth of TABOR refunds per year on average through the next decade.

Other supporters include the AFL-CIO, the Colorado Professional Firefighters and ProgressNow Colorado.

“Hardworking Colorado families and vulnerable seniors who are on the brink are most at risk if we don’t pass Prop HH,” Beth Hendrix, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Colorado, said in a statement, calling it “the most responsible solution” to property tax increases.

Groups that have come out against Prop HH include the Colorado Association of Realtors and the Colorado Special District Association.

Ann Terry, executive director of the Special District Association, called the measure “too complicated” in an interview, even if it contains some relief elements her group might otherwise be able to support. But it “was not thought out and presented to stakeholders in a way where we would be able to understand its current impact and long-term impact,” she said.

If the proposition passes, Terry said, there is wide concern that local governments and special districts won’t be fully reimbursed for tax revenue they would otherwise collect.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

to spend $145 million to build, own and operate up to 460 fast public electric vehicle chargers over the next three years. In July, the company filed an alternative plan to spend $120 million from 2024-2026 for a program offering rebates to businesses and non-regulated entities to build charging stations.

Under the alternative, Xcel, Colorado’s largest electric utility, wouldn’t own or operate the chargers. The EV charging proposal is part of Xcel’s transportation electrification plan, required by state law.

Trade organizations representing convenience stores and other businesses interested in installing chargers have said utilities would have an unfair advantage in the emerging market. They said utilities can use ratepayers’ money to invest in the infrastructure and get authorization from regulators for a certain rate of return on their investments.

However, Xcel has said the 460 chargers it proposed operating are less than 10% of the more than 6,000 additional chargers needed to support the state’s goal of having 940,000 electric electric vehicles on the road by 2030. Advocates of speeding up the transition to electric vehicles to address climate change and improving air quality see the involvement of utilities as important.

Retailers have argued that utilities’ entry into the market will discourage private businesses and entrepreneurs.

Xcel Energy’s alternative that would offer rebates as incentives for others to build public chargers isn’t a response to the criticism from private businesses, Xcel spokeswoman Michelle Aguayo said.

“We are committed to supporting public fast charging for electric vehicles in Colorado, but recent developments among Tesla and many major auto manufacturers in the high-speed public charging market required we propose an alternative strategy for consideration,” Aguayo said in an email.

Since Xcel submitted its plan in May, several automobile manufacturers, including Ford and General Motors, announced they will adopt Tesla’s charging connector design, known as the North American Charging Standard. Tesla’s design has been proprietary and other car companies have used the public domain Combined Charging System standard.

But to allow other automakers to use adapters to plug into its system. The “current uncertainty and volatility in the public charging market” and the potential for the uncertainty to continue prompted Xcel to consider all options, the company said in testimony to the PUC.

“I would question the logic of that. This is a nascent marketplace that����ap growing and evolving every day. It’s not like it was all stable and super settled back in May when they filed this and everything changed by July,” said Ryan McKinnon, spokesman for the a national coalition that includes retailers who want to build EV charging stations.

McKinnon believes feedback from businesses, the public and state agencies in Minnesota, where Xcel is based, and other states spurred the company to propose the alternative.

‘While we don’t have a position on rebate programs in general, what Xcel is proposing at least recognizes that utility ownership of EV chargers is a failed model that will not grow the EV charging network that Colorado needs,” McKinnon said.

McKinnon noted that Xcel Energy took heat over its EV charging plan from state agencies in Minnesota in June.

The told the state utilities commission that Xcel “has not shown that it can build, operate, and maintain even the limited number” of the fast-charging stations it has been approved to build.”

after getting a lower rate increase than it sought from Minnesota regulators. The company said it will resubmit its proposal.

AARP Colorado opposes Xcel adding the expense of building EV chargers to the rate base, the basic electric rate that customers pay.

Residential customers’ monthly basic rates wouldn’t rise to pay for building EV chargers or the rebate program, Aguayo said. But a fee that recovers the utility’s costs of electrification would raise the average residential electric bill by 77 cents a month.

Basic rates for commercial and industrial customers would go up an average of $15 a month, according to Xcel, to help cover costs.

Get more business news by signing up for our Economy Now newsletter.

In its second plan on electric vehicles filed with regulators, proposes spending $145 million to build a public charging network over the next three years in addition to offering rebates and other programs. , a national coalition that includes retailers that want to build EV charging stations, opposes proposals by Xcel and other utilities to install and operate chargers.

Coalition spokesman Ryan McKinnon said regulated utilities like Xcel Energy would have an unfair advantage in the emerging market because they can use ratepayers’ money to invest in the infrastructure and they get a certain rate of return on their investments.

“We’re advocating for policies that will make it more of a level playing field for private business retailers, basically just letting the free market come in and be able to provide this service without having to compete with a monopoly,” McKinnon said.

The coalition also objects to utilities owning and operating chargers because the money will come from ratepayers, including low-income customers and people who don’t have EVs.

Will Toor, executive director of the Colorado Energy Office, said there’s plenty of room for investors who want to build the thousands of charging stations that will be needed to meet the state’s goals for electrifying transportation.

“I’m more concerned that between state, federal, utility and private sector investment, can we get enough investment to meet that need,” Toor said.

released earlier this year by the Polis administration calls for 2.1 million cars and SUVs on Colorado roads by 2035 and 1,700 fast chargers and 5,800 slower public chargers.

An analysis by the said that nearly $1 billion will have to be spent on charging infrastructure through this decade if Colorado wants to meet its goals.

The analysis suggested that Colorado will need nearly 5,000 fast-charging EV ports by the end of 2030, said Christian Williss, managing director for transportation at the energy office.

“Right now we’re at a little over 800,”  Williss said. “It kind of takes an all-hands-on-deck approach.”

Not the right vehicle?

Ray Huff doesn’t think Xcel Energy and other investor-owned, regulated utilities are the right vehicles to build EV-charging networks. Huff is president of HJB Convenience Corp., a Lakewood-based convenience store operator. He said private businesses nationwide want to take advantage of state and federal incentives to start installing chargers but worry about competing with utilities.

“They want to charge me as a ratepayer for their buildout of the network and then get their 10% or 9% return on the money that they took from us,” Huff said. “I can’t do that as a private business person, why can they? Well, it����ap because they have a monopoly.”

Public utilities are regulated but essentially operate as monopolies, providing service in certain geographical areas. In return, they get to recover the costs of building power plants, transmission lines and other expenses while making a certain amount of profit.

Both Xcel Energy and Black Hills Energy have submitted plans to the PUC for supporting the use of electric vehicles. Business and trade groups that object to utilities getting into the EV charging business have focused on Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest electric utility.

Xcel has proposed building and operating up to 460 public fast chargers in its service territory from 2024-2026. That number is less than 10% of the more than 6,000 additional chargers needed to support the state’s goal of having 940,000 EVs on the road by 2030, Jack Ihle, Xcel’s regional vice president for regulatory policy, said in testimony to the PUC.

Ihle said that leaves more than 90% of the additional charging needed to be met by others. Xcel’s plan includes offering rebates for installing home EV chargers; rebates for vehicles; support for the electrification of commercial fleets; rates that encourage charging when demand on the grid is low; and public outreach.

“Transportation is the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States and our EV vision complements our net-zero carbon emissions goal for 2050,” Xcel spokeswoman Michelle Aguayo said in an email.

The goal is to provide everyone in communities served by Xcel “the benefits of electric transportation, whether they own an EV, use public transit or benefit from improved air quality,” Aguayo added.

Xcel Energy recovers its costs of electrification through a rider on customers’ bills. Aguayo said the new plan will increase the average residential electric bill by 77 cents a month.

However, Xcel’s large commercial and industrial customers will see average monthly increases of $15.

In the long run, Xcel customers will benefit from more electric vehicles tapping into the grid, said Travis Madsen, transportation program director for the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. People charging at home usually plug in their cars at night or when demand is low and there’s excess capacity on the system.

“In effect, we’re using our electric system more efficiently. We’ve already invested in these power plants, the wires and the transformers and whatnot,” Madsen said.

Electric vehicle drivers are putting more money into the electric system, which will help lower everyone’s rates, Madsen said.

A study by said customers with EVs in three of the utility service areas with the most electric vehicles in the U.S. contributed more than $1.7 billion in net revenue between 2012 and 2021. The result has been “downward pressure” on electric rates, the study said.

Fueling competition or not?

Bill Levis, an AARP Colorado volunteer, has a different viewpoint. He testified against in part because it allowed utilities to cover the costs of building chargers by increasing the rate base, the basic rate customers pay. The law cleared the way for electric utilities to supply public charging stations and, with approval of the PUC, recover their costs.

Levis, the former head of what is now the Colorado Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate, said AARP Colorado remains opposed to utilities adding the expense to the rate base.

“Putting it in the rate base means that those on fixed incomes and lower income people who can’t afford EVs would end up paying for subsidized charging stations,” Levis said in an email.

In addition, because regulators authorize set rates of return for the investments that utilities make, it gives them an unfair advantage in the marketplace, Levis said.

“If Xcel is looking to get ratepayers to subsidize their own investment, it will distort markets to such a degree that retailers who today are strongly considering installing EV charger stations would abandon that effort,” said David Fialkov with the

The association has weighed in on utilities proposing to build and run EV chargers in other states. One of those states is Minnesota, where Xcel Energy is based and where it recently withdrew a transportation electrification plan.

Xcel withdrew a clean transportation plan in early June after it got a lower rate increase than it sought from the Minnesota Public Utility Commission. in Minneapolis reported that Xcel had proposed building and owning 730 EV fast chargers in the state.

Xcel Energy spokeswoman Aguayo said the company is evaluating its next steps and will submit another transportation plan to Minnesota regulators in November.

The said in a document to the utilities commission that it’s encouraging Xcel to review how it can help develop the state’s EV infrastructure. The department said Xcel “has not shown that it can build, operate, and maintain even the limited number” of the fast-charging stations it has been approved to build.

Fialkov said his organization and businesses don’t oppose Xcel Energy and utilities building EV chargers “on their own dime” or in areas where private businesses might not be willing to build.

“A lot of companies are looking at applying for federal grants to install EV chargers and if Xcel continues down the path it’s intending to go on, those plans will be abandoned and Colorado will be left behind,” Fialkov said.

Get more business news by signing up for our Economy Now newsletter.

The program was designed to provide a continuation of care and ease a home health worker shortage that grew worse after COVID-19 hit.

But now, with the COVID-19 public health emergency over, he worries that the extra income will disappear. Some states have already stopped payments while others have yet to make them permanent.

“The success of this during the pandemic was tremendous … for the first time we were able to pay our own way,” said the Meridian, Idaho, resident. “We’re not relying on charities to help us pay our rent and utilities.”

A total of 39 states, with the help of the federal government, either started paying family caregivers or expanded the population eligible for payment during the pandemic, according to a survey last summer by KFF, a non-profit that studies health care issues.

Depending on the state, family caregivers were paid for helping people with intellectual or physical disabilities, medically fragile children or patients dealing with traumatic brain or spinal cord injuries. Details like pay rates and who could be paid varied.

“For each state, there’s a different story as to how this played out,” said Alice Burns, associate director of KFF’s program on Medicaid and the uninsured.

Researchers say there are no good national estimates for how many family caregivers started receiving payments during the pandemic.

About 53 million people provided care for family members with medical problems or disabilities, according to a 2020 report from AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving.

Those who got paychecks during the public health emergency say the money reduced financial stress, helped provide care and gave dignity to their previously unpaid work.

Jessa Reinhardt and her husband, Jason, each received $24 an hour to provide care for their autistic daughters, ages 8 and 5. The Vernonia, Oregon, couple could not provide care at the same time.

The money allowed the family to build some savings since Jason quit his job several years ago to become a caregiver. It also allowed them to start taking the girls on outings to socialize them. They would make regular trips to Walmart so the girls could learn how to make choices and pick out a small item to buy.

But they had to curtail that once their payments ended in May. Jessa Reinhardt said the girls will still want to buy something.

“We can’t always say yes to that,” she said.

While some states have ended caregiver payments for now, federal officials say several states are still considering their next steps. Laws and waivers that regulate who can receive caregiver payments after the public health emergency may make it challenging for some to continue payments.

Federal officials say they are encouraging states to continue family caregiver payments.

States found that being flexible with caregiver payments helped keep residents served during the pandemic, said Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. She said surveys have shown, too, that people generally like receiving care from family members.

But she also noted that there are concerns both nationally and at a state level about the potential for fraud when paying family members as opposed to an agency that may be subject to more oversight. States also want to make sure that any family caregivers are trained properly and provide quality care.

Idaho Medicaid administrator Juliet Charron said the state was working to continue reimbursement for parents and spouses who provide care. But she added that the program will “likely look a bit different from the flexibility that has been in place” during the public health emergency.

Hill expects his program will last a few more months.

He was paid during the pandemic to provide non-nursing care like bathing and changing Brady, who needs around-the-clock care after surviving a rare brain cancer diagnosed at just 14 months old. He says he has no nursing degree or certification but has training and years of experience. His work is monitored by a supervising nurse.

Both Hill and Reinhardt say they can’t simply bring in a state-funded outside caregiver to help.

Hill has nurses come in to monitor his son on most overnights, but he delivers care during the day. Hill says caregivers are hard to find and quick to leave. He figures that the family has probably gone through around 50 nurses in the past 13 years.

He says each new one takes a few weeks to train, and then they frequently leave for a job with better pay.

Reinhardt said bringing in help is too challenging partially because one of her daughters deals with severe anxiety. If an outside caregiver is late or calls in sick, their daughter may take days to recover from the disruption.

“There’s no replacement for my husband and I,” she said.

Even if outside caregivers were viable for these families, there might be a wait to get one.

More than 650,000 people were on waiting lists for home and community-based services in 2021, according to another KFF report. Who winds up on that list can depend on factors like worker shortages, the number of available services and whether states check patients on the list for eligibility.

Family caregivers can provide more consistent care and have better long-term knowledge of their patients than someone who comes in from the outside, noted Holly Carmichael, CEO of GT Independence, a Sturgis, Michigan, company that manages financial services for people with disabilities.

“You provide better services to someone you love and care about,” said Carmichael, whose daughter was born with a rare congenital disease. “They’re part of your life versus a job.”

Carmichael’s firm helps people do background checks on potential caregivers and then does payroll, tax withholdings and other paperwork once they are hired.

She said it makes no sense to end payments to family caregivers.

“We have a shortage of caregivers in our country,” Carmichael said. “We need to be pulling every lever we can.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get health news sent straight to your inbox.