|
<br />e
<br />
<br />(weeds, mosquitos, etc.), water and sewer systems, and community improvements.
<br />Counties administer a variety of state programs and functions, as well as providing othe;
<br />general government services such as law enforcement, roads and highways, social .
<br />services, judicial services, tax assessment and collection, and health services, to name
<br />only a few. Municipalilies, likewise, provide a wide variety of general government public
<br />services, including law enforcement, slreets, and parks, to again name only a very few.
<br />Finally, school districts provide public K-12 education.
<br />
<br />The vast majority of these governments rely on property tax revenues for some or all of
<br />the public services and facilities they provide. For many of the special districts, property
<br />taxes provide all of their revenues.
<br />
<br />This study is based on data submitted by each county assessor to a contractor for the
<br />Colorado Legislative Council for a legally required assessment equalization study. Of the
<br />state's 63 counties, only Jackson, Kiowa, and Crowley were unal;>le to submit data.
<br />Additonally, data from Douglas County could not be used because ofa flaw in the
<br />software employed. With those exceptions, the data include every property parcel and
<br />every taxing entity in 59 counties. The assessed values and mill levies are those certified
<br />to the Division of Property Tax as of January 1,2000. From this large database, some
<br />entities were omitted because they levy no property tax or for other technical reasons.
<br />
<br />e
<br />What Does It Mean?
<br />
<br />As a result of these omissions, this study reports on only 56 counties (of63 total), 174
<br />school districts (of 176 total), 245 municipal governments (of268 total), and 981 special
<br />districts (of 1,622 total).
<br />
<br />Of course, any analysis of the potential impacts of this proposed amendment depends on
<br />being able to determine what it means and what il will require from the language of the
<br />proposal. The language and provisions of this particular proposal are ambiguous to a
<br />fault and there is not much doubt that the Colorado Supreme Court will have the
<br />unenviable task of trying to definitively decipher it.
<br />
<br />It appears that the proposal would require each tax bill from each taxing government to be
<br />reduced by $25 during the year 2001, then by $50 during 2002, $75 in third year, and so
<br />on, increasing by $25 each year in perpetuity. The tax bills affected would include those
<br />for utility customer taxes, occupalion ta'(es, franchise taxes, property taxes, sales taxes on
<br />vehicles, ownership taxes on vehicles, and income taxes. Joint income tax returns would
<br />be equal to two tax bills, entitling the joint filers to two tax credits in the applicable
<br />amount for the year in question. In addition, apparently those governments that charge a
<br />sales tax on nonalcoholic and non-tobacco food and drink would have to deduct the
<br />revenues realized from their property tax bills.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />There is much that is simply unknown about how this proposal would be implemented if
<br />adopted by the voters. For example, how would the sales tax revenues on food and drink
<br />be refunded-per capita, proraled by the amount of the property tax bill, etc.? Would the
<br />property tax cut apply to each separate levy assessed by a government (even if not
<br />
<br />Page 2
<br />
|