BOARD00489 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

much more than the average. For example, the maximum loss among school districts is' < 48%, among fire districts it is 83%, among libraries the maximum is 81 %, and one pest _ control district will lose 97% of its revenue. The maximum loss for a rural hospital is _ 58%. Of course, these are losses only of property tax revenues, but they are the only revenues for many of these govenunents. For example, fire districts cannot levy any tax other than property tax, and fees for service are not feasible. Some examples may help reach an understanding of the consequences that can be expected. In 1998, the South Park Ambulance District had total revenues of $543,750. This total consisted of$233,045 from property tax, another $47,683 from specific ownership tax (another tax to be cut), and the balance from fees, intergovenunental revenues, and miscellaneous. Under TABOR 205, the district will lose 41% ofilS property tax revenue in the firsl yellf. If it had 10Sl this during 1998, the cut would have been $95,500, leaving the district with only about 80% of its actual revenue. A cut of 20% in one year would be difficult for any government to absorb. Certainly some service would have to be cut, but how does an ambulance district cut life saving service? The Adams County Library district would lose 42% of its property tax revenue in 200 I under this proposal. For governments in Costilla County, the picture is so drastic that the consequences are hard to comprehend. Costilla County government will lose 43% of its property tax revenue, the Coslilla Arnbulancedistrict will lose 80%, Costilla Fire Protection will lose 83%, and the Centennial R- I School District (Costilla County) will lose 48%. It appears that the few public services available in the stale's poorest county will simply disappear, in the first v@: ofT ABOR 205. e Even in the first year, it is apparent that the cuts will be deep and will mean substantial reductions in or elimination of services. In many instances, the governments simply will not be able to operate or continue to exist. With each succeeding year, another $25 is added to the amount of the tax cut. Bruce has publicly proclaimed that the ever increasing tax cut amount will not eliminate the property tax, rather he claims that it will only reduce the rate of growth in it. Of course, whether this is .an accurate assertion depends upon several variables: the rate at which property values rise, the amount of the particular mill levy, the rate of change in the residential assessment ratio under the Gallagher amendment, the value of a particular property, and whether that property is residential or business. This proposed constitutional amendment will not operale in a vacuum. One of the interactions will be with the Gallagher amendment that pel]letuates a formula mandating biennial adjustments to the residential assessment ratio used to calculate property tax bills. The formula requires that the total of property taxes collected by all govenunents, statewide, be maintained at 45% from residential property owners and 55% from owners of commercial and other properties. Because of the amendment, residences are currently assessed at 9.74% of market value, while businesses, farms, and other commercial properties are assessed at 29% of market value. As the total value of residential properties continues to rise relative to the value of other properties, this 9.74% assessment ratio will _ continue to decline somewhat in future years. ,., The TABOR amendment, itself, interacts by applying limits to the amount of growth in revenues and expenditures allowed to each government in the state. It prohibits upward Paoe 5 '"