This proposal would increase the property tax mill levy by 0.9 mill ($7 on a $100,000 property) for 5 years to backfill deficiencies in state funding for human services. An unusual feature is that, according to the ballot language, the county commissioners will review the state funding situation annually and may reduce the mill levy as state funding is restored. Resolution 2010-92 more specifically states that the mill levy rate will be reduced as “the unmet needs of eligible services … have been reduced from the prior year.”
The county administers various human services programs under the state’s direction. Recently caseloads have increased, state funding has decreased, and the county was required by 2008 state statute to spend down any TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) reserves, money which previously was available for a rainy-day fund. State law requires counties to raise money for human services delivery through property taxes. (In Boulder County voters also approved a 0.05% Worthy Cause sales tax in 2000 with 2 extensions through 2018, but this goes toward capital improvements and equipment for local human services non-profits.)
Recommendation: yes
According to the 2010 Kids Count in Colorado! report, between 2000 and 2008 the number of children living in poverty grew faster in Colorado than in any other state. The percentage of Boulder County residents who live in poverty grew from 9.5% in 2000 to 10.7% in 2008 and jumped to 13.9% in 2009 (Camera, Sept 29, 2010). Boulder’s 2009 rate is higher than the state’s poverty rate of 12.9%.
Money received by the needy typically gets spent within the community almost immediately, contributing to economic vitality. This proposal is for a temporary backfill and the amount will be revisited every year to see if human service needs still warrant the full mill levy increase.
In these tough economic times this is a tax that will make a positive difference in our community.
Facebook page for the Yes side (Neighbors Helping Neighbors)
http://www.facebook.com/Yeson1a
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
County Issue 1A (Approved Ballot Language)
[Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Increase]
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $5.4 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2011) THROUGH AN INCREASE IN BOULDER COUNTY'S AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY OF 0.9 MILL, FOR FIVE YEARS TO AND INCLUDING 2015, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH SHALL BE USED TO BACKFILL DEFICIENCIES IN STATE FUNDING FOR COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND FOR CONTRACTS WITH NON-PROFIT AGENCIES MAINTAINING A SAFETY NET FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN BOULDER COUNTY, SUCH INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 29 1 301, C.R.S., EACH YEAR WITHOUT SUCH INCREASE, AND A VOTER-APPROVED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CHANGE AND A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; AND SHALL THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN SETTING THE ANNUAL MILL LEVY AS AUTHORIZED BY THIS ISSUE, REDUCE THE EFFECTIVE TEMPORARY MILL LEVY FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH STATE FUNDING HAS BEEN PARTIALLY OR FULLY RESTORED FOR COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' RESOLUTION NO. 2010-92?
YES ____ NO ____
See Resolution 2010-92 to refer 1A to the ballot.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/bocc/Ballot_Issues/Res_2010-92_Human_Services_Safety_Net_Mill_Levy_Boulder_County_Issue_1A.pdf
Showing posts with label property tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label property tax. Show all posts
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
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
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
Saturday, October 17, 2009
City of Boulder 2B – Open Space General Obligation Bonds
In 1993 voters approved the issuance of bonds payable from the open space sales and use tax. The city has not yet issued $33.45 million of those bonds. The city intended to issue general obligation bonds which have favorable interest rates, but the Colorado Supreme Court subsequently determined that the voters only approved revenue bonds which require that the city keep a 10% reserve fund while the bonds are outstanding. On the other hand, the general obligation bond safeguard requires the city to increase property taxes if open space sales and use taxes are insufficient to repay the bonds. Five previous open space bond issues have been issued with a general obligation pledge, but the pledge has never been needed because sales and use tax collections have been sufficient.
Recommendation: FOR
This technical change would allow the city to save money on interest and not have to hold over $3 million in reserve -- two smart financial moves in these tough economic times. Property taxes which are fairly low in Colorado would be raised only if the designated open space sales and use taxes and other city revenue are insufficient. In this economy it seems possible that city income from the sales and use tax could be lower than expected and a property tax increase might occur. However, I think the certain benefits of this proposal outweigh the potential, if any, costs.
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
OPEN SPACE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $33,450,000 WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $80,863,800, AND SHALL CITY TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $3,200,000 ANNUALLY, (TAXES TO BE INCREASED ONLY IF EXISTING DEDICATED OPEN SPACE SALES AND USE TAXES ARE INSUFFICIENT TO REPAY THE DEBT); AND
SHALL THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEASURE BE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO OBTAIN MORE FAVORABLE INTEREST RATES AND TERMS FOR BONDS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN 1993 BY ISSUING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS; AND
SHALL THE BOND PROCEEDS BE USED TO CONTINUE THE PURCHASE OF OPEN SPACE REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS AS WAS PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN 1971; AND
SHALL THIS PURPOSE BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF CITY BONDS AT A NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 7% PER YEAR AND WITH A MATURITY DATE NOT TO EXCEED 30 YEARS FROM THE RESPECTIVE DATES OF ISSUANCE; AND
SHALL SUCH BONDS BE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME(S) AND IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS MEASURE, AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE; AND
SHALL SUCH BONDS BE PAYABLE FROM REVENUE DERIVED FROM EXISTING SALES AND USE TAXES, WITHOUT ANY INCREASE IN RATE, EARMARKED AND COMMITTED FOR SUCH PURPOSES BY VOTE OF THE CITY’S ELECTORS AND BY A PLEDGE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE CITY AS AUTHORIZED IN THE CITY’S CHARTER AND PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 7673; AND
SHALL AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES BE LEVIED IN ANY YEAR WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE AND IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT, TOGETHER WITH OTHER AVAILABLE REVENUES, TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH BONDS WHEN DUE; AND
SHALL ANY EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES AND BONDS (REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT) CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE ____
Ordinance 7673 submitting Ballot Issue 2B to the voters
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2009/Ordinance_7673_-_Open_Space_General_Obligation_Bonds.pdf
Recommendation: FOR
This technical change would allow the city to save money on interest and not have to hold over $3 million in reserve -- two smart financial moves in these tough economic times. Property taxes which are fairly low in Colorado would be raised only if the designated open space sales and use taxes and other city revenue are insufficient. In this economy it seems possible that city income from the sales and use tax could be lower than expected and a property tax increase might occur. However, I think the certain benefits of this proposal outweigh the potential, if any, costs.
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
OPEN SPACE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $33,450,000 WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $80,863,800, AND SHALL CITY TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $3,200,000 ANNUALLY, (TAXES TO BE INCREASED ONLY IF EXISTING DEDICATED OPEN SPACE SALES AND USE TAXES ARE INSUFFICIENT TO REPAY THE DEBT); AND
SHALL THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEASURE BE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO OBTAIN MORE FAVORABLE INTEREST RATES AND TERMS FOR BONDS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN 1993 BY ISSUING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS; AND
SHALL THE BOND PROCEEDS BE USED TO CONTINUE THE PURCHASE OF OPEN SPACE REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS AS WAS PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN 1971; AND
SHALL THIS PURPOSE BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF CITY BONDS AT A NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 7% PER YEAR AND WITH A MATURITY DATE NOT TO EXCEED 30 YEARS FROM THE RESPECTIVE DATES OF ISSUANCE; AND
SHALL SUCH BONDS BE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME(S) AND IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS MEASURE, AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE; AND
SHALL SUCH BONDS BE PAYABLE FROM REVENUE DERIVED FROM EXISTING SALES AND USE TAXES, WITHOUT ANY INCREASE IN RATE, EARMARKED AND COMMITTED FOR SUCH PURPOSES BY VOTE OF THE CITY’S ELECTORS AND BY A PLEDGE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE CITY AS AUTHORIZED IN THE CITY’S CHARTER AND PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 7673; AND
SHALL AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES BE LEVIED IN ANY YEAR WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE AND IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT, TOGETHER WITH OTHER AVAILABLE REVENUES, TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH BONDS WHEN DUE; AND
SHALL ANY EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES AND BONDS (REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT) CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE ____
Ordinance 7673 submitting Ballot Issue 2B to the voters
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2009/Ordinance_7673_-_Open_Space_General_Obligation_Bonds.pdf
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
City of Boulder 201 -- City Retention of Property Tax Funds
This is a “de-Brucing” measure to allow the city to retain excess property tax funds up to .5 mills per year and to allow any taxes collected above that amount to be credited to a property owner’s subsequent year’s taxes. (Douglas Bruce is the author of TABOR [Article X, Section 20 of the CO Constitution]. TABOR requires governments with revenues over a certain amount to return the excess revenue to the taxpayers unless the voters approve government retention of those revenues. Voters in Boulder have already permitted the city to retain excess revenue from the sales and use tax. If this measure passes, the city will be completely “de-Bruced.”)
Recommendation: for
I am generally in favor of de-Brucing. This year Boulder residential property owners received a 2.78 mill-credit on their tax bill. If this measure passes, in six years this credit would no longer appear on property tax bills. Although this measure would allow the city to retain more property taxes, it does not allow the city to raise the mill levy to collect more property taxes. If the city wanted to do that, it would have to get voter approval.
BALLOT ISSUE NO. 201 (Approved Ballot Language)
CITY RETENTION OF PROPERTY TAX FUNDS
Without raising taxes, and in order to pay for necessary city purposes such as fire apparatus, information technologies, energy costs, facility maintenance and city services, shall the city of Boulder, pursuant to Ordinance No. 7608, be allowed to retain and spend property tax funds collected in tax collection years 2009 and beyond, and retain and spend any earnings therefrom, without limitation or condition, and without limiting the collection or spending of any other revenues or funds by the city of Boulder, under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution or any other law?
And in connection therewith,
(1) Shall any increase in retained taxes starting in tax collection year 2009 that is authorized by this measure be limited to .5 mills per year, and (2) shall any tax monies that are collected above those that the city may retain be credited to property owners as an offset against the subsequent year’s taxes?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
Recommendation: for
I am generally in favor of de-Brucing. This year Boulder residential property owners received a 2.78 mill-credit on their tax bill. If this measure passes, in six years this credit would no longer appear on property tax bills. Although this measure would allow the city to retain more property taxes, it does not allow the city to raise the mill levy to collect more property taxes. If the city wanted to do that, it would have to get voter approval.
BALLOT ISSUE NO. 201 (Approved Ballot Language)
CITY RETENTION OF PROPERTY TAX FUNDS
Without raising taxes, and in order to pay for necessary city purposes such as fire apparatus, information technologies, energy costs, facility maintenance and city services, shall the city of Boulder, pursuant to Ordinance No. 7608, be allowed to retain and spend property tax funds collected in tax collection years 2009 and beyond, and retain and spend any earnings therefrom, without limitation or condition, and without limiting the collection or spending of any other revenues or funds by the city of Boulder, under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution or any other law?
And in connection therewith,
(1) Shall any increase in retained taxes starting in tax collection year 2009 that is authorized by this measure be limited to .5 mills per year, and (2) shall any tax monies that are collected above those that the city may retain be credited to property owners as an offset against the subsequent year’s taxes?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)