You should be receiving your ballots today, just so you know...
We don’t often do this, but we asked the A22 Board to express their reasoning for opposing this particular measure. The following is a consensus of their deep concerns:
This is a TREMENDOUS policy shift, one which should have been carefully considered with a robust “stakeholder” process. Instead, it was introduced in the final minutes (literally) of the Session.
When considered over a ten-year period, it's a multi-billion-dollar tax increase. This is possibly the largest state tax increase in a single action in the history of Colorado - while it guts TABOR.
It stops taxpayer refunds. A 1% increase annually over the current TABOR provisions (inflation and population growth), as proposed, in the long run will mean the tax cap will never be reached.
After the first few years, property taxes would grow just as if this law didn't exist.
While the measure lasts 10 years, the state can extend that forever without going back to the taxpayers.
Almost every local government in Colorado is against this bill because it further erodes local control.
Further, SB23-108 eliminates any need for HH as: The act allows a local government to provide temporary property tax relief through temporary property tax credits or mill levy reductions and later eliminate the credits or restore the mill levy. A temporary reduction in property taxes must be annually renewed by the local government. A school district may not temporarily reduce its mill levy below an existing statutory minimum mill levy amount.
The language of Prop HH is misleading. The measure offers miniscule relief on the front end while paying heavily later on. Consider this: If HH is actually a tax reduction as primarily billed, how does a tax reduction make more money available to schools?
This law, if voted in, creates a new subclass of land use, owner occupied and non-owner occupied. The process for compliance with HH is unclear except through a very laborious, costly, home-by-home contact with property owners. Counties would be forced to hire more land use employees at their own cost to comply with this section of the law... an unfunded mandate.
This decision was made after we hosted a “For and Against Prop HH”discussion at our Annual Meeting. Click on link above to listen.