Archuleta County Democratic Party Central Committee, statement in opposition to Amendments 60 & 61 and Proposition 101

From Archuleta County Democratic Party website/blog

Archuleta County Democratic Party Cental Committee

Statement in Opposition to Amendments 60 & 61 and Proposition 101 on the ballot for the 2010 General Election.

Voters are faced with three (3) draconian fiscal initiatives this November. Amendments 60 & 61, and Proposition 101 have not been received well by those negatively impacted or by those informed on the repercussions these measures will have on public facilities, infrastructure and services. Candidates for statewide office in southwest Colorado unanimously oppose all three (3) measures. The Archuleta Democratic Party Central Committee joins in unqualified opposition to Amendments 60 & 61 and Proposition 101.

The Denver Business Journal opined that these "ballot proposals could cost jobs, lengthen downturn", and Coloradoans for Responsible Reform quantifies the negative impacts; stating "seventy thousand jobs will be lost. ... More than half the job losses will come from private businesses, the rest from critical public service functions in State and local government."

Amendment 60 – Recommendation: NO
Amendment 60 re-sets property tax decisions to 1992 levels – the year TABOR passed. It will require all local school districts to cut property taxes within their respective jurisdictions by half, and take away some local control by restricting the ability of local voters to support revenue enhancements. Under Amendment 60, local utilities and enterprise funds would have to pay property taxes to the State, which is required to replace local school district budget shortfalls.

We oppose Amendment 60 because it deprives local communities of needed revenue they voted for and imposed on themselves. The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute has preliminarily estimated the fiscal impact of re-imposing the original TABOR limits at $549 million. With an economy already in crisis and concern for being able to retain service levels in spite of drastic budget cuts already, Amendment 60 is totally irresponsible, and we urge your vote in defeating this initiative.

Amendment 61 – Recommendation: NO
Amendment 61 places severe restrictions on the ability of State and local governments to incur debt for major public improvement projects. This measure significantly expands restrictions on government to borrow, while curtailing options for financing public projects. All debts incurred by State and local governments will be required to repay the indebtedness in full within ten (10) years. In addition, once the debt is paid, the local government is required to reduce taxes equal to the annual payment formerly paid. Finally, the local governmental entity will not be able to
borrow more than ten percent (10%) of its actual (market) property values.

We oppose Amendment 61 because it deprives historically useful and appreciated revenue sources to local communities. According to the Bell Policy Center, this initiative would ban the use of any kind of debt by the State of Colorado, and prohibit the use of general obligation bonds, certificates of participation, revenue bonds, tax anticipation notes or borrowing by "any other name." The Center found no other state subject to such over-reaching debt restrictions.

Currently, Colorado local governments are authorized to borrow up to three percent (3%) of the actual assessed value of real property under their jurisdiction. This amendment would change that formula to ten percent (10%) of the total assessed taxable real property. Not only would local governments be unduly restricted in their authorized authority to incur debt, they would also be subject to all the TABOR requirements. Potentially, if a town needs a new snow plow or grader on a lease-purchase, the transaction would have to be submitted to the voters for approval.
Using an example from the Bell Policy Center from Arapahoe County, showed bonding authority dropped from $1.9 billion to $780 million or 40% of their existing authority. Smaller communities like Archuleta County and Pagosa Springs have difficulty funding public improvement projects under the existing formula. The new formula would preclude any large project to sustain or improve the quality of life for residents.

In the case of Archuleta County current bonding authority is $12,775,734 (based on 3% of an approximate actual (market) property valuation of $425,857,814). Under Amendment 61 this authority would be reduced to $1,703,431.20 (10% of assessed property values, which would be 40% of the actual (market) property values).

Proposition 101 – Recommendation: NO
Proposition 101 eliminates significant funding sources for schools, roads, bridges and other critical public infrastructure statewide. This measure targets major cuts to State income tax rates – dropping them from 4.6% to 3.5% over ten (10) years.

Additionally, the measure cuts vehicle registration fees to 1919 levels. The vehicle ownership tax could be reduced by 98%. Finally, telecommunication fees will be cut significantly if Proposition 101 passes. The stated intent of this measure is in the first sentence, which reads, "This voter-approved revenue change shall be strictly enforced to reduce revenue." The implication is to define spending limits according to TABOR. If so, then passage of this measure will repeal Referendum C, passed by the voters in 2005 to mitigate the negative impacts on State revenues coming out of the 2001-03 recession. In other words, this new limit would ratchet down State pending coming out of the "Bush Great Recession". Rather than State and local governments being able to take advantage of the recovery to catch up on deferred public needs; budgets would actually be kept at their lowest levels – carrying over recession level budgeting.

We oppose Proposition 101 because it would cut revenue to schools, local governments and special districts to the point they would no longer to be able to operate at approximate levels. The cuts in services would drastically degrade the quality of life for residents and have a significant adverse impact on property values. Hardest hit would be road and bridge funds, which are drastically in need of more funding – not less.

The Bell Policy Center has done a county-by-county analysis of the fiscal impacts from this measure (http://bellpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Archuleta1page.pdf). The implication for Archuleta County according to this analysis is a 98% drop in vehicle registration funding for schools, Archuleta County, fire, health, library and water – or a drop of $1.4 million. Details as follows: vehicle registration fees devoted to 1) schools would decline by $535,000 (from $543,675 to $8,591), 2) Archuleta County funding would drop by $438,000 ($445,214 to $7,085), 3) special districts (including fire, health, water, library) would decline by $425,000 ($432,372 to $6,832).

The implications are graphically shown for Archuleta County as follows:
In conclusion, we want to reiterate our opposition to Amendments 60 & 61 and Proposition 101. Passage of any one of these three initiatives would have dire consequences for not just State and local governments, but for special districts, school districts, hospital districts, and special service districts. While this may put money in the pockets of taxpayers, these measures will cut services, impede the financing of needed public improvements, and curtail the quality of life for us all. Please vote against Amendments 60 & 61 and Proposition 101 for the greater good. The Legislative Services Council will make available its Blue Book analysis of all ballot measures by mail to each household with a registered voter, and it will be available online the week of September 13th at www.coloradobluebook.com. The third draft of the Blue Book is available now online.

Sources
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Property_Taxes,_Amendment_60_(2010)
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_State_and_Local_Debt_Limitations,_Amendment_61_(2010)
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Motor_Vehicle,_Income,_and_Telecom_Taxes,_Proposition_101_(2010)
http://www.cclponline.org/search
http://bellpolicy.org/node/3659