Proposition 104 – School District Open Meeting Requirements for Collective Bargaining

Collective bargaining is the negotiation process between workers’ representatives, usually labor union officials, and an employer to determine conditions of employment. In addition to salary, benefits and work schedule, collective bargaining for teachers may determine other issues such as curriculum and class size.

There are 179 school districts in Colorado. About 3/4 of Colorado public school students attend schools in districts with collective bargaining agreements. Colorado law currently allows school districts and other local governing bodies to meet in closed sessions to discuss certain announced topics upon a vote of 2/3 of the members present. Any final votes or actions, however, must take place in public meetings. Currently, collective bargaining negotiations can be held outside of school board meetings in closed meetings by a small subset of school board members or by school district representatives. This proposed change would no longer allow closed collective bargaining meetings.

Recommendation: no

In general, I support the ability to hold closed, executive sessions on an occasional basis. Collective bargaining can be a long, drawn-out, complicated and sensitive process. I’m not convinced that having more disparate voices weighing in either in the actual meeting or outside of the meeting through social media or other public forums will benefit the process. The better solution, I think, is for the electorate and unions to elect good leaders to represent them in the collective bargaining process.

I also wonder, like many others, why only school districts are targeted. Schools have been the target of political forces at least since George W. Bush pushed through No Child Left Behind. The largest and 3rd largest school districts in the state, Jefferson County and Douglas County respectively, have recently made some controversial decisions, but it’s not clear that having open negotiating sessions would benefit either management or workers.


Website for the Yes side (Sunshine on Government)
http://www.sunshinek12.org/

Website for the No side (Local Schools, Local Choices)
http://getthefactson104.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 104 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring any meeting of a board of education, or any meeting between any representative of a school district and any representative of employees, at which a collective bargaining agreement is discussed to be open to the public?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST


See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to amend the Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-6-402 and add subsection 22-32-109.4:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/124Final.pdf

Boulder Valley School District 3A -- $576M Bond

BVSD is asking to raise property taxes for 30 years in order to repair, replace, and improve current facilities and build new facilities. The new tax would be $47 per $100,000 of assessed property value per year.

Nearly 50% of the $576M bond request is for “extending the life of existing buildings,” according to the campaign website. The examples listed are “roofs, electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems, new flooring, paint, ceilings, increase energy efficiency by upgrading lighting, fine tuning HVAC controls, and follow BVSD’s green building principles.”

Almost 20% of the money is for a new school in Erie and to replace Emerald, Douglass and Creekside elementary schools. Close to 10% is for central administration construction (kitchen, transportation, technology) or renovation (maintenance/warehouse). The remaining bond money would go primarily toward the following areas in descending dollar order: Program Compatibility (what the 2006 bond emphasized), Health and Physical Development, Early Childhood Education, Educational Innovation, Sustainability, and IT.

Recommendation: no

In 2011 I objected to the city of Boulder’s bond for capital improvements because “we could be paying for new repairs (if we have the money) and not yet be finished paying for old repairs.” That bond was for 20 years. This bond is planned for 30 years so BVSD could present us with even more opportunities to realize this scenario.

A bond to build a new school in Erie would be a reasonable request, but half of the bond going for maintenance is unreasonable. BVSD voters approved a bond for $64M in 1998 and one for $296.8M in 2006. The taxpayers won’t always be able to afford a new and bigger bond every 8 years. It’s time for BVSD to figure out a long-term plan for funding maintenance.

Compare this bond to the 2012 Denver Public Schools bond which also included some maintenance projects but which will be paid back in a shorter span of time.
BVSD    $576M   repayment $1.35 billion   term ~30 years
DPS     $466M    repayment $738M           term ~20 years

The Yes campaign website says that there is “not adequate state funding” to provide education services and maintain buildings. Perhaps that was a bad choice of words because in 2009-10 state funding only accounted for about 30% of BVSD’s per-pupil funding. This is according to BVSD’s Budget Perspectives which doesn’t seem to be have been published since 2010. One wonders if publishing stopped because in 2010 the generous BVSD voters quickly passed the maximum mill levy override when the legislature allowed school districts to get annually 25% of base funding (aka total program funding) rather than a specific dollar amount up to 20% of base funding. I had my qualms about supporting that override.

If this bond were for 15 years or just for new schools which would last for more than 30 years, I could support it, but we’re not doing our kids and grandkids any favors by kicking the bill down the road to them with not much to show for it at the end of 30 years.


Website for the Yes side (Vote Yes on 3A)
http://yeson3a.org/

Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 BALLOT ISSUE 3A
SHALL BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 DEBT BE INCREASED $576,520,000 WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $1,351,017,635, AND SHALL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $56,097,800 ANNUALLY TO PAY SUCH DEBT, ALL FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE DISTRICT’S EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND MONITORED BY A CITIZENS’ BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

- INVESTING IN ALL DISTRICT SCHOOLS, SITES AND FACILITIES BY REPAIRING, REPLACING, AND/OR UPGRADING INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING SYSTEMS AND FINISHES FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPROVING THE LEARNING AND WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR STUDENTS AND STAFF, INCREASING FUNCTIONALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF DISTRICT-WIDE SUPPORT FACILITIES, EXTENDING THE LIFE OF BUILDINGS; IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CREATING SAFER ENVIRONMENTS;

- ADDRESSING THE EDUCATIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN DISTRICT SCHOOLS BY MODERNIZING, EXPANDING AND CONSTRUCTING LEARNING SPACES SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLASSROOMS, PERFORMANCE SPACES, FITNESS FACILITIES, SPECIAL EDUCATION DEDICATED SPACES AND SPACES THAT SUPPORT INNOVATIVE EDUCATIONAL DELIVERY;

- EXPANDING FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN OPPORTUNITIES AND PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS BY RENOVATING, ENLARGING AND CONSTRUCTING EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SPACES;

- CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING A SCHOOL CAMPUS TO SERVE GRADES PRE-K THROUGH 8 IN ERIE, COLORADO TO ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND INVESTING IN THE REPLACEMENT OF SELECT SCHOOLS THAT HAVE EXCEEDED THEIR SERVICE LIVES;

AND, TO THE EXTENT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE, FOR OTHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES RELATED TO CONSTRUCTING, REPAIRING AND EQUIPPING DISTRICT BUILDINGS, AND SHALL THE MILL LEVY BE INCREASED IN ANY YEAR WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE AND AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT OR ANY REFUNDING DEBT (OR TO CREATE A RESERVE FOR SUCH PAYMENT); SUCH DEBT TO BE EVIDENCED BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO BE SOLD IN ONE SERIES OR MORE, FOR A PRICE ABOVE OR BELOW THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SUCH SERIES, ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND WITH SUCH MATURITIES AS PERMITTED BY LAW, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR REDEMPTION OF THE BONDS PRIOR TO MATURITY WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM OF NOT TO EXCEED ONE PERCENT; AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REFUNDING DEBT THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ALL DEBT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT SET FORTH ABOVE; AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ALL DEBT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THIS QUESTION IS ISSUED ON TERMS THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE REPAYMENT COSTS AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION; AND SHALL SUCH TAX REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH BOND PROCEEDS AND TAX REVENUES BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?

YES______
NO______


See BVSD RE-2 Resolution No. 14-20 to refer 3A to the voters.
http://www.boarddocs.com/co/bvsd/Board.nsf/files/9MT8PW721940/$file/Boulder%20Valley%20Schools%20-%20Election%20Resolution%20(2014).pdf

BVSD 2014 Educational Facilities Master Plan
http://bvsd.org/CapitalImprovements/Documents/EdFacilityMasterPlan.pdf

Amendment 66 – Two-Tier Income Tax to Fund Public Education

Amendment 66 proposes a two-tier, personal income tax with new revenue (~$950 million in the first fiscal year) deposited in a separate fund for preschool through grade 12 (P-12) public education. The current, flat income tax rate is 4.63% on federal taxable income. Starting in tax year 2014, the rate would return to the 1990s level of 5% for federal taxable income of $75,000 or less and rise to 5.9% on amounts over $75,000. The $75,000 amount may be adjusted annually to reflect inflation.

This amendment also repeals Amendment 23, placed on the ballot by petition and approved by voters in 2000 to guarantee public education funding increases at 1% above inflation for 10 years and thereafter to keep pace with inflation. Rather, Amendment 66 also requires that at least 43% of state income, sales and excise tax revenue, collected at existing tax rates, be allocated to public education. In the last 13 budget years, the average share spent on P-12 education has been 46%.

Senate Bill 13-213, passed by the General Assembly, proposes a new formula for state and local education funding contingent on voter approval of Amendment 66.

Recommendation: yes

A criticism of Prop 103 in 2011 was that it didn’t go far enough. Amendment 66 is much more ambitious creating a permanent change to income tax rates.

Amendment 23, an initiative to increase public education, has had its text reinterpreted in recent years, resulting in less money going to education than supporters expected. Some people are understandably suspicious that Amendment 66 could also be subject to a future reinterpretation of funding formulas. Another argument stated against Amendment 66, particularly for Boulder, is that Boulder taxpayers will pay more money out than their (relatively wealthy) school district will receive. Finally, some education supporters oppose this measure because they don’t like the 2010 Senate Bill 191 education reforms on testing and teacher accountability that will get funded.

Meanwhile, in May the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-2 in Lobato vs State of Colorado that the state’s education funding system is “thorough and uniform” and that the state is not required to spend more on K-12 public education.

As one who doesn't like dedicated taxes, I can tolerate this one because public education is a major expense for state government. By considering the 43% as a minimum for education funding, having a strict limit seems more tolerable. There is always the risk that money may be spent unwisely, SB13-213 has some recordkeeping requirements to improve transparency.


Website for the Yes side (Colorado Commits to Kids)
http://coloradocommits.com/

Website for the No side (Coloradans for Real Education Reform)
http://www.coforrealedreform.com/


Amendment 66 (CONSTITUTIONAL) (Approved Ballot Language)

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED BY $950,100,000 ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS ARE RAISED THEREAFTER BY AMENDMENTS TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING FUNDING FOR PRESCHOOL THROUGH TWELFTH-GRADE PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING THE CURRENT STATE INCOME TAX RATE ON INDIVIDUALS, ESTATES, AND TRUSTS AND IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL RATE SO HIGHER AMOUNTS OF INCOME ARE TAXED AT HIGHER RATES; REQUIRING THE RESULTING INCREASES IN TAX REVENUES BE SPENT ONLY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO PRESCHOOL THROUGH TWELFTH-GRADE PUBLIC EDUCATION; ALLOWING ALL TAX REVENUES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS MEASURE TO BE COLLECTED AND SPENT WITHOUT FUTURE VOTER APPROVAL; REQUIRING AT LEAST 43% OF STATE SALES, EXCISE, AND INCOME TAX REVENUES BE DEPOSITED IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; AND REPEALING CERTAIN EXISTING PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING REQUIREMENTS?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST

Proposition 103 – 5-Year Tax Increase for Public Education

Prop 103 is a citizens’ initiative spearheaded by Rollie Heath, a state senator from Boulder. It proposes temporarily increasing the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 5% and the state sales and use tax from 2.9% to 3% for five years. Supporters point out that Prop 103 would restore tax rates to the levels in the late 1990s. The state would have to fund public education from preschool through college for the next five years using level of the 2011-12 school year plus the additional revenue from these tax increases.

Colorado is having a tough time balancing its books. The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute bandied about some progressive tax proposals for consideration for this year’s ballot. They would have brought in more revenue than Prop 103, but the general feeling is that voters don’t have much of a stomach for a tax increase and that there will be plenty of opposition from organized groups. Colorado is the only state in the nation with a tax increase on its 2011 statewide ballot. Probably not coincidentally, Colorado is also the only state with all the strict requirements of TABOR.

Spending for education currently takes up half of the state’s general fund. The state is limited in how much it can cut some items, such as prisons and Medicare. Higher education in Colorado is not protected and has been hit particularly hard. Amendment 23, passed by the voters in 2000 was designed to ensure that K-12 education funding grew at the rate of inflation with an additional 1% for the first 10 years. For the state’s 2009-10 fiscal year the legislature redefined “base per pupil funding” so even Amendment 23 didn’t protect K-12 education.

This ballot measure would help some districts more than others. Boulder Valley School District voters have been generous with their dollars so BVSD doesn’t need the money as much as many other districts. (See the 2010 BVSD ballot issue 3A.) Proponents estimate that Prop 103 would restore $532 per student in BVSD versus $1,167 per student in Silverton School District.

Boulder would like to see a big, temporary increase in the University of Colorado’s funding if Prop 103 passes, but Prop 103 doesn’t specify how the new revenue would be divided among the various recipients.

A side note – Meanwhile, the state has been sued in Lobato v. State of Colorado. Plaintiffs claim that the system of education in CO is not “thorough and uniform” and therefore violates the state constitution. The case has been heard, and interested parties are awaiting the judge’s ruling.

Recommendation: yes

Education is an critical part of any successful nation and democracy. Prop 103 will not solve education problems in Colorado. Its supporters acknowledge that the proposal is only a temporary fix. The plan is to work hard toward a longer term fix to the state’s budget situation during the 5-year temporary tax increase. Otherwise we could see fights in Colorado similar to those that we are seeing nationally over the continuation of the Bush tax cuts.

Whether or not Prop 103 passes, the state needs to work on a long-term fix to its budget woes. Meanwhile, Prop 103 would help fund education in a state that is at or near the bottom of the nation in education funding.


Website for the Yes side (Support Schools for a Bright Colorado)
http://brightcolorado.com/

Websites for the No side
(Too Taxing for Colorado)
http://www.tootaxing.org/
(Save Colorado Jobs)
http://savecoloradojobs.org/


Proposition 103 (STATUTORY) (Approved Ballot Language)

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $536.1 MILLION ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY AMENDMENTS TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN CERTAIN STATE TAXES FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE INCOME TAX IMPOSED ON ALL TAXPAYERS FROM 4.63% TO 5% FOR THE 2012 THROUGH 2016 INCOME TAX YEARS; INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX FROM 2.9% TO 3% FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS COMMENCING ON JANUARY 1, 2012; REQUIRING THAT THE ADDITIONAL REVENUES RESULTING FROM THESE INCREASED TAX RATES BE SPENT ONLY TO FUND PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH TWELFTH GRADE AND PUBLIC POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION; SPECIFYING THAT THE APPROPRIATION OF THE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES BE IN ADDITION TO AND NOT SUBSTITUTED FOR MONEYS OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH TWELFTH GRADE AND PUBLIC POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION FOR THE 2011‐12 FISCAL YEAR; AND ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES TO BE COLLECTED, KEPT, AND SPENT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY LAW?
‐ Yes
‐ No

Boulder Valley School District 3A -- Mill Levy

Colorado attempts to provide an equitable amount of base funding for each student. Property tax mill levies fund a large portion of school districts. To achieve equity, the state supplements districts having low property values with more state funding. However, the state, by allowing districts to ask voters for extra money through a mill levy override, reverses some of its equalization efforts.

Until this year districts could ask for a specific dollar amount equivalent to up to 20% of the base funding, called total program funding. With inflation the requested amount, which originally might have equaled 20%, over time becomes a smaller percentage of the total program funding. The school district can then ask for another override for the difference. Currently, BVSD has 3 overrides in effect equaling about 16% of total program funding.

This year the legislature changed the law to allow districts to ask for up to 25% of total program funding. Unlike in the past, the district no longer needs to ask for a specific dollar amount. If the voters approve this measure, then each year BVSD can calculate 25% of its total program funding and set the mill levy override accordingly. If less funding is deemed necessary, BVSD is not required to impose the full override amount, but schools always want more money for education so asking for less money seems unlikely. The 2011 property tax on a $100,000 residential property would increase by about $37.

Passing this override means that BVSD voters would never vote on another override in the future (unless the state legislature increases the ceiling again or Amendment 60 passes).

Next school year's step increases (which correlate to experience) and cost-of-living increases for BVSD teachers are dependent upon the passage of this ballot issue (Camera, Aug 25). BVSD also hopes to fund more early childhood education programs to close the achievement gap. The new revenue goes into BVSD's general fund.

Resolution No. 10-25 to refer Ballot Issue 3A passed unanimously at the Aug 24, 2010 BVSD Board of Education meeting.

Recommendation: lean toward yes

This ballot issue is problematic. It takes away some school board accountability by no longer allowing voters to approve future overrides. Unlike Issue 1A, this ballot language provides no indication that BVSD might ever impose less than the maximum mill levy on property owners.

This is a tough time to ask for a permanent, "maximum" tax increase (and especially tough for the Fourmile Canyon folks who lost their homes). However, I'd like the school district to be able to focus on educating children rather than on fundraising. If we can be assured that the money will be spent well, the tax icrease will be a good investment.


Website for the Yes side
http://votechildrenfirst.org/

Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 BALLOT ISSUE 3A

SHALL BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE 2 TAXES BE INCREASED BY $22,500,000 DOLLARS IN 2010 FOR COLLECTION IN THE 2011 CALENDAR YEAR, AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE COLLECTED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY THE IMPOSITION OF A MILL LEVY WHICH GENERATES REVENUE, WHICH TOGETHER WITH THE REVENUES PRODUCED BY PREVIOUS VOTER AUTHORIZED TAX INCREASES OF THE DISTRICT UNDER 22-54-108, C.R.S., AS AMENDED, IS NOT GREATER THAN TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE DISTRICT’S TOTAL PROGRAM FUNDING PLUS SUPPLEMENTAL COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, TO BE USED FOR GENERAL FUND PURPOSES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
· RESTORING CRITICAL BUDGET CUTS;
· MITIGATING FUTURE BUDGET CUTS;
· SUPPLEMENTING TEACHER AND STAFF COMPENSATION;
· FUNDING EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMS;
AND SHALL SUCH INCREASE BE AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE LEVIES THE DISTRICT IS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO IMPOSE; AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES FROM SUCH TAXES AND THE EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH REVENUES AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?

YES _____ NO _____


See the last 9 pages of the Aug 24, 2010 BVSD Board of Directors meeting agenda for Resolution No. 10-25.
http://bvsd.org/boe/Pages/default.aspx

2008 State Ballot Issues – 11 Months On

In 2008 the voters of Colorado only approved 4 state ballot issues (all constitutional changes): Amendments 50 and 54 and Referenda M and N. The approved referenda were housekeeping referenda to deal with obsolete provisions in our overburdened state constitution. Below are some follow-up comments on a few of the 2008 state ballot issues from the perspective of October 2009.

Amendment 50 – approved by voters (59% yes to 41% no)
Limited Gambling in Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek

Seventy-eight percent of the tax revenue increase from this amendment goes toward community colleges. David Skaggs was the Executive Director of CO Department of Higher Ed and lobbied hard for passage of Amendment 50. On Sept 11, 2009 David Skaggs resigned from his position citing an irreconcilable difference with the governor.


Amendment 54 – approved by voters (51% yes to 49% no)
Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors

In June Denver Judge Catherine Lemon temporarily halted implementation of Amendment 54. The Colorado Attorney General appealed the ruling to the State Supreme Court. The case has been fast-tracked and arguments will begin in the fall.

Colorado Independent article on Amendment 54
http://coloradoindependent.com/36511/colorado-supreme-court-fast-tracks-clean-government-amendment-case


Amendment 59 – rejected by voters (45% yes to 55% no)
Education Funding and TABOR Rebates

There are several big constitutional constraints on our state budget. Amendment 59 would have gotten rid of the Amendment 23 and TABOR rebate handcuffs, but voters rejected it. Meanwhile, the state budget situation is even bleaker today than a year ago. To help solve the budget problems, legislators used a loophole in the School Finance Act (SB 256) to delay until January 2010 some of the Amendment 23 funding. In January we will know if the delayed funding is actually available.

A column by Kevin Holst about Amendment 23
http://www.examiner.com/x-9202-Denver-Republican-Examiner~y2009m5d6-Amendment-23-and-the-new-fiscal-crisis-factor


Referendum O – rejected by voters (48% yes to 52% no)
Citizen-Initiated State Laws

Ref O proposed constitutional changes to the initiative process. It was rejected by voters, but since then a new law, HB 1326 (Integrity of Citizen-Initiated Petitions), makes many statutory changes to the initiative process including changing the way that state issues are presented on the ballot. Changes to the constitution will be called amendments and changes to the statutes will be called propositions.

Text of HB 1326
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/5A4C8A345E184B5487257537001A32E4?Open&file=1326_enr.pdf

Amendment 59 -- Education Funding and TABOR Rebates

This initiative would 1) set aside money up to a certain threshold in a savings account within the State Education Fund for preschool through 12th grade (P-12) education and limit when the savings account money can be spent, 2) allow certain transfers from the general fund to the State Education Fund after required transfers to the Highway Users Tax Fund are made, 3) eliminate the inflationary increase in P-12 education spending currently required by the Amendment 23 provision, and 4) eliminate TABOR rebates (when the state collects more money than is allowed) putting the money in the State Education Fund. The first two provisions listed above would take effect in the 2009-10 fiscal year, but the other provisions would only take effect in the 2011-12 fiscal year.

Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- CHANGES Section 17 of Article IX and ADDS a subsection to Section 20 of Article X

Recommendation: yes
Amendment 23 and the TABOR rebates have handcuffed the general assembly in its ability to budget for our state. This amendment would get rid of both of those handcuffs. It also allows the state to set aside money for education in an economic downturn. Because P-12 education is the biggest chunk of the state budget and we are taking away Amendment 23’s provisions of guaranteed funding, it is reasonable for the TABOR rebates to go into the State Education Fund. Although taxpayers might be unhappy about not getting future rebates, revenue collection (e.g. taxes) is still constrained by TABOR. Meanwhile, the hope is that the P-12 education system in our state will improve.


Website for Yes side (Savings Account for Education Initiative)
http://www.coloradosafe.org/

Website for No side (Strike a Better Balance)
http://www.strikeabetterbalance.com/


Amendment 59 (Approved ballot title below)

Education Funding and TABOR Rebates

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATE FUNDS PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH GRADE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR THE 2010-11 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, REQUIRING THAT ANY REVENUE THAT THE STATE WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED TO REFUND PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT ON STATE FISCAL YEAR SPENDING BE TRANSFERRED INSTEAD TO THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT, FOR THE 2011-12 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, THE STATEWIDE BASE PER PUPIL FUNDING FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH GRADE AND THE TOTAL STATE FUNDING FOR ALL CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS INCREASE ANNUALLY BY AT LEAST THE RATE OF INFLATION; CREATING A SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF THE STATE INCOME TAX REVENUE THAT IS DEPOSITED IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND BE CREDITED TO THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; REQUIRING EITHER A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE OF EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR, IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH COLORADO PERSONAL INCOME GROWS LESS THAN SIX PERCENT BETWEEN THE TWO PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEARS, A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO USE THE MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT; ESTABLISHING THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT MAY BE SPENT; ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT MAY BE IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR; AND ALLOWING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO TRANSFER MONEYS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE STATE EDUCATION FUND, SO LONG AS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ARE MET?

Yes ________________ No ________________


To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.