Colorado Librarians, Many Others Fear Anti-Tax Ballot Measures Would Devastate Government
By Norman Oder Sep 2, 2010Public services in Colorado, including library services, could be devastated if three seemingly simple—and, to critics, complex and deceptive—tax rollback measures pass in the November 2 election.
The proposals are likely the most dramatic efforts to pare government in any state, leading library advocates and others to warn of effective governmental collapse. A public relations pushback has begun, and will ramp up even more after Labor Day.
According to an analysis (full document below) by the Colorado Legislative Council, the state's general operating budget would be left almost completely committed to paying for the constitutional requirements of K-12 education.
While an average household earning $55,000 per year (with a $295,000 house) would save an estimated $1,800 per year in taxes, state government would lose an estimated $2.1 billion a year and local government would lose an estimated $3.8 billion per year. "State enterprises" like universities would have to pay property taxes.
Librarians unnerved
"For the first time in my career, I question whether the public values public service," Janine Reid, director of the High Plains Library District, Greeley, told LJ. She noted the appeal of the campaign: "Who wouldn't want to be limited to spending $10 for a new vehicle license?"
In a statement, Jon Walker, executive director of the Pueblo City-County Library, warned, "we are also making contingency plans to reduce or eliminate most library services."
Jamie LaRue, director of the Douglas County Libraries, Castle Rock, warned in an op-ed that the impact of just one of the three measures would be a 52 percent loss in the library budget, and ensuing cuts in staff and hours.
"How do you plan your services not knowing if you're going to have 100 percent, or 50 percent, of what you have now?" asked Gene Hainer, Assistant Commissioner, Colorado State Library, describing to LJ the dilemma libraries face. The Jefferson County Public Library has estimated a potential $1.4 million loss over four years.
Fighting back
Library advocates have organized under the banner of Bad 3 Bad 4 Libraries, warning that, if the measures pass, "we can count on at least 70,000 lost jobs statewide, battered local business, pillaged public amenities, and severely diminished library service."
The library advocacy plan is the second phase of a project that began earlier this year, the Colorado Public Library Advocacy Initiative, which aimed to get "external library advocates" to present four points (that libraries change lives, mean business, build community, and are a smart investment) five times, to 115 communities around the state.
Meanwhile, some major business and civic organizations—including the state AFL-CIO, Education Association, and Economic Development Council—have organized as Coloradans for Responsible Reform under the banner of Don't Hurt Colorado. The organization plans to spend $3.5 million on television advertising, beginning after Labor Day, according to a local news report.
In a press release, the group pointed to a finding by the state's administrative court that antitax crusader Douglas Bruce was behind three initiatives on November's ballot, though two proponents were nominally identified as designated representatives .
Amendment 60
According to Coloradans for Responsible Reform, Amendment 60 would require school districts to cut property taxes by 50 percent, thus overturning hundreds of local elections (known as "de-Brucings," in a reference to Douglas Bruce) in which local voters have agreed to raise taxes to meet local needs.
The progressive Bell Policy Center says that, under Amendment 60's requirements, enterprises-including the Division of Correctional Industries, the Division of Wildlife, and the University of Colorado-would have to begin paying property taxes, thus imposing new impacts tuition-paying students and families
Supporters of Amendment 60 state, "There is no revenue loss to school districts. State aid is already required by law to replace 100% of school tax revenue impacts. Amendment 60 reinforces that existing requirement by saying ‘state aid shall replace that revenue yearly.'"
Amendment 61
Amendment 61 would severely limit "government borrowing," in essence doing away state and local bonding by requiring local districts to repay bonds within ten years, rather than a longer term, according to Coloradans for Responsible Reform. The state would be prohibited from using common financial instruments like "revenue anticipation notes" and "certificates of participation."
The Bell Policy Center notes that such measures have been used to fund capital construction projects at 12 college campuses throughout the state and to repair, renovate, and replace K-12 schools with major structural problems throughout the state. Reid said her library had used them to build new branches.
After bonds have been repaid, taxes used for repayment must be lowered-even if those taxes weren't raised in the first place.
Proponents of Amendment 61 offer an explanation that ignores the alternative use of money not used for high shorter-term payments. "Borrowing $100 million at 7% interest for 30 years costs $239 million to repay," they state. "Borrowing that amount for 10 years costs $139 million. We would save $100 million in interest, which builds nothing."
Proposition 101
Meanwhile, Proposition 101, among other things, would cut the annual vehicle registration fee "to an arbitrary $10," a figure last imposed in 1919, according to Coloradans for Responsible Reform.
Supporters of Proposition 101 say that "Denver politicians recently DOUBLED registration ‘fees,' already way above the true cost of registering cars. They spend the money elsewhere. That's a $265 million yearly tax increase. Voters never approved that tax, as the constitution requires. Proposition 101 makes that annual ‘fee' a simple, flat $10 per vehicle (still more than government's $4 actual processing cost)."
According to the Bell Policy Center, the overall impact would be enormous: "when fully implemented the provisions of Proposition 101 would reduce state income tax revenues by $1.2 billion per year (current value), state and local revenues from a range of sales taxes and vehicle fees by well over $1.1 billion per year (current value), and state revenues from telecommunications charges and fees by $4.5 million (current value) per year."
