Ritter’s education proposal faces hurdles in Legislature

By ED SEALOVER THE GAZETTE

March 20, 2007 - 1:08AM

DENVER - Gov. Bill Ritter’s plan to freeze property taxes for full-day kindergarten and the state’s school districts with the lowest funding is running into questions and opposition.

I'm not sure why the press keeps calling this "Ritter's Plan." Sure he supports it, but it's not new and a lot of people have been supporting it for a long time.

Republican Rep. Norma Anderson put it in the School Finance Act in 2004 and it passed out of the Senate (with just a few "no" votes).

I think the whole "Ritter Plan" concept is part of a new storyline the press is developing. I think it's along the lines of "the honeymoon's over" and the governor is stumbling into opposition in the legislature.

Sen. Sue Windels, who already had removed it temporarily from her 2007 School Finance Act, said Monday that she may not attempt to return the Ritter proposal to the legislation until it clears the Senate and hits the House. She has asked for a legal opinion on its constitutionality, and Attorney General John Suthers also is looking into it.

While seeking legal advice is common, removing a major portion of legislation while a lawmaker is getting such advice is not. Sen. Steve Johnson, a Fort Collins Republican, said he has never seen something handled quite like Senate Bill 199.

Sue didn't remove anything from the bill, she just put off adding something to it: and amendment stabilizing the local share of eduction revenue. There's nothing unusual about that. In any case, we have legal advice and what we're doing is legal and constitutional.

Windels, D-Arvada, said she plans to reintroduce Ritter’s measure in enough time for it to pass, and she believes it is necessary to get it through this year. House sponsor, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, added that once questions are answered about it, he believes people will realize that it benefits districts equally across the state.

But a number of other legislators, most of whom are Republicans, look at the stalling tactics as a sign that the measure may not be as much of a slam dunk as it seemed when Ritter unveiled it at a news conference a week ago.
“I think the program is in serious jeopardy with Republicans and Democrats alike,” said Sen. Josh Penry, a Fruita Republican and member of the Senate Education Committee.

Who called it a "slam dunk." Everything down here has critics and anything that involves taxes is especially open to opposition.

Republicans have been taking pot shots at the idea, but it hasn't stopped them from packing the School Finance Act with adding spending in their districts. Where's the money going to come from? Where? Oh, I see -- you do the spending an we find the money.

Yeah, it's kind of irritating.

The governor’s plan is to freeze property taxes in almost all of the school districts across the state, raising $65 million for full-day kindergarten. By creating new revenue rather than taking the money from the School Education Fund, it would stabilize the fund and allow Ritter to put $12.6 million a year from it to the 11 school districts that receive the lowest per-pupil funding in the state, three of which are in El Paso County.

Yup, the same El Paso County that's chock full of conservative Republicans. And yup, they want the money.

Thus far, no one has complained about the attempts to bolster early-childhood education to cut the dropout rate and help poorer students.

“People really understand that we get the best bang for our buck out of early intervention, so I haven’t heard any criticism of where the money is going to,” Windels said.

The complaints are about the funding mechanism.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights requires districts whose revenues grow at a greater rate than their student populations to lower property-tax rates to keep revenues below a state cap.

Of the 178 districts, 174 have voted to exempt themselves from this cap, but the 1994 School Finance Act keeps those rates dropping even when voters exempt the district. Ritter’s plan would freeze the rates of those 174 districts where they are and send the new revenue to the state.

Penry, Johnson and others question whether freezing the tax rates without a vote of the people is constitutional. Windels has asked the legislative legal staff for an opinion, and Suthers’ spokesman Nate Strauch said that is one of the questions the state attorney general is asking.

OK, this is a little complicated. Freezing tax rates is fine; lowering them when revenue grows is just one of many ways to refund money as required by TABOR. Over the years the legislature has frequently changed TABOR refund mechanisms.

But that's a side point. The real point is that people have voted and they voted to take their school districts out of TABOR. TABOR requires a vote of the people. The people have voted. And in the school districts where they voted to debruce (slang for getting out of TABOR is -- it's a reference to Douglas Bruce, who wrote TABOR), we're doing exactly what they voted to do.

Penry also questioned whether such a tactic is a political land mine, as it would mean that anyone with property escalating in value will have to pay higher taxes. Some Democrats are questioning whether to support that, he said.

When the value of your home goes up, you pay more in property taxes. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it is now. TABOR limits how much more you pay, but doesn't keep it from increasing.

M0st school districts, most counties and now the state have debruced (Ref. C was a 5-year debrucing). I suppose each one of those hundreds of debrucing was some kind of political land mine, but people survive.

Pommer countered that one reason for delaying legislative introduction of the plan is because he and Windels are talking to local school districts, explaining what it means and seeking their support. The sponsors said they’re confident the measure will end up in the bill, and then it’s just a matter of selling its merits.

Ritter’s spokesman, Evan Dreyer, said the plan will have to be addressed in order to keep the education fund from drying up.

“If we don’t address it this year, we will need to address it next year,” Dreyer said. “The problems compound themselves.”

But because the additional revenues won’t increase the fund’s solvency until 2011, that is another area where Republicans are gearing up to fight the bill, Penry said.

So, at least for now, the first big education salvo from the first-year governor is going to have to overcome obstacles in order to make it back to his desk for his signature.

CONTACT THE WRITER: (303)837-0613 or ed.sealover@gazette.com