School finance crisis looms
Clint Talbott, for the editorial board
Most Colorado voters have agreed to “de-Bruce” their school districts — allowing the schools to keep revenue that exceeds an arbitrary cap. A state law shouldn’t force them to “re-Bruce” — refunding property-tax revenue even as state finances suffer.
If you’re confused, take heart. Confusion is a natural byproduct of the labyrinthine Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, brought to you by the anti-government activist Douglas Bruce. But the bottom line in the latest budget brouhaha is simple: Most Colorado voters have de-Bruced their school districts, and Colorado’s governor only seeks to have the law recognize the voters’ intent — by re-Brucing.
It’s lucky, if such a word fits in this context, that the last state budget calamity is so fresh in the state’s memory. That might help Coloradans understand this latest unintended consequence of the state’s bizarre budget system, and it might prod them to avert the next looming crisis.
Gov. Bill Ritter is pushing a plan to freeze (and in some cases cut) property-tax rates across the state, in the hope of keeping the state education fund from tanking.
Because of the unanticipated interplay between state law and the Colorado Constitution, the local share of public-school financing has been dropping, which means the state’s share has been rising. If the trend lines don’t change, K-12 education will require funds that are needed by higher education and human services.
That would very much resemble the budget crisis from which Colorado just emerged, with the help of a 2005 statewide referendum. Now, as then, the definition of key terms is only loosely tethered to the common meaning of English words. Namely, foes equate taxes that fail to fall with a “tax increase.”
Ritter, the newly elected Democrat, is taking a second stab at stabilizing school funding. He first floated the idea of freezing property-tax rates several weeks ago, but the talk of “tax increases” shot it down.
Now Ritter is trying again, this time suggesting that property-tax rates be cut in 33 districts and be frozen in 145 others. He is armed with a new advisory opinion from the non-partisan legislative legal staff, which concludes that Ritter’s proposal “clearly does not constitute a new tax, tax-rate increase, mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ratio increase for a property class, or extension of an expiring tax.”
Legally speaking, then, freezing or dropping property-tax rates is not a tax increase. As the Rocky Mountain News reported Thursday, however, the plan might result in higher tax bills for those whose assessed valuation rises.
Rep. Cory Gardner, a Yuma Republican, told the News, “If I am paying more property taxes next year with the passage of this than I would be paying without the passage of this, that’s a tax increase.”
Even if that were true, the fact remains that the voters have already consented to such a quasi “tax increase.” A 1994 state law is thwarting the voter’s will. The alternative to the Ritter plan is fiscal distress.
In a recent statement, Ritter noted that failing to act would mean that the State Education Fund will be broke by 2011. “As a result, every corner of the state budget not protected by the Constitution or a federal mandate — every service provided to the people of Colorado — will suffer. This includes higher education, health care, human services and the courts.”
We’ve just traveled that road. And since the voters have already given their consent, it’s hard to imagine why we wouldn’t shift course.
Clint Talbott, for the editorial board
Most Colorado voters have agreed to “de-Bruce” their school districts — allowing the schools to keep revenue that exceeds an arbitrary cap. A state law shouldn’t force them to “re-Bruce” — refunding property-tax revenue even as state finances suffer.
If you’re confused, take heart. Confusion is a natural byproduct of the labyrinthine Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, brought to you by the anti-government activist Douglas Bruce. But the bottom line in the latest budget brouhaha is simple: Most Colorado voters have de-Bruced their school districts, and Colorado’s governor only seeks to have the law recognize the voters’ intent — by re-Brucing.
It’s lucky, if such a word fits in this context, that the last state budget calamity is so fresh in the state’s memory. That might help Coloradans understand this latest unintended consequence of the state’s bizarre budget system, and it might prod them to avert the next looming crisis.
Gov. Bill Ritter is pushing a plan to freeze (and in some cases cut) property-tax rates across the state, in the hope of keeping the state education fund from tanking.
Because of the unanticipated interplay between state law and the Colorado Constitution, the local share of public-school financing has been dropping, which means the state’s share has been rising. If the trend lines don’t change, K-12 education will require funds that are needed by higher education and human services.
That would very much resemble the budget crisis from which Colorado just emerged, with the help of a 2005 statewide referendum. Now, as then, the definition of key terms is only loosely tethered to the common meaning of English words. Namely, foes equate taxes that fail to fall with a “tax increase.”
Ritter, the newly elected Democrat, is taking a second stab at stabilizing school funding. He first floated the idea of freezing property-tax rates several weeks ago, but the talk of “tax increases” shot it down.
Now Ritter is trying again, this time suggesting that property-tax rates be cut in 33 districts and be frozen in 145 others. He is armed with a new advisory opinion from the non-partisan legislative legal staff, which concludes that Ritter’s proposal “clearly does not constitute a new tax, tax-rate increase, mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ratio increase for a property class, or extension of an expiring tax.”
Legally speaking, then, freezing or dropping property-tax rates is not a tax increase. As the Rocky Mountain News reported Thursday, however, the plan might result in higher tax bills for those whose assessed valuation rises.
Rep. Cory Gardner, a Yuma Republican, told the News, “If I am paying more property taxes next year with the passage of this than I would be paying without the passage of this, that’s a tax increase.”
Even if that were true, the fact remains that the voters have already consented to such a quasi “tax increase.” A 1994 state law is thwarting the voter’s will. The alternative to the Ritter plan is fiscal distress.
In a recent statement, Ritter noted that failing to act would mean that the State Education Fund will be broke by 2011. “As a result, every corner of the state budget not protected by the Constitution or a federal mandate — every service provided to the people of Colorado — will suffer. This includes higher education, health care, human services and the courts.”
We’ve just traveled that road. And since the voters have already given their consent, it’s hard to imagine why we wouldn’t shift course.
No comments:
Post a Comment