8 MAY 18-24, 2023 westword.com WESTWORD | MUSIC | CAFE | CULTURE | NIGHT+DAY | NEWS | LETTERS | CONTENTS | cial districts within the county for services related to school, fi re, recreation, cities and towns, and library districts. In addition to the limitations imposed by TABOR, there are special statutory mill levy limits on law enforcement authorities. “These are different than the limit for any other local governments,” says the report. Arapahoe County’s 2023 property tax revenue for the 2022 assessed valuation is estimated at $168,737,602 — which puts it second to last for taxing districts in the county. Cities and towns bring up the rear with a total of $78,352,145 in tax revenue, or 6.1 percent of the take, according to the budget report. School districts and special districts, meanwhile, rake in $755,223,374, or 58.3 percent, and $292,664,673, or 22.6 percent, respectively. “While values grew by double digits, the county’s coffers won’t see signifi cant increases for critical services,” Arapahoe offi cials charged in an April 27 announce- ment after the state’s property values report was released. “For example, if an average home val- ued at $500,000 has a property tax bill of $3,400, the county only retains about $430 to provide critical services that residents expect, such as public safety and road main- tenance, which clearly does not cover the cost of such services,” the county offi cials explain. “Current growth projections suggest that the county will add almost 200,000 new residents in the next seven years, so this challenge will be further compounded absent an increase in the County’s revenues.” According to Arapahoe County data, TABOR has been restricting the county’s revenue growth in recent years to around 5 to 7 percent year over year — depending on infl ation and new construction. While every county is set up differently in terms of what services it provides, many are go- ing through similar TABOR-related dilemmas. “Yeah, Jeffco’s got some TABOR prob- lems,” says Jefferson County assessor Kers- gaard. “Everyone that’s subject to TABOR has issues with TABOR.” If you look at the history of valuations and taxes in Jefferson County, he explains, values tend to go up pretty much every cycle — prompting the county’s more than 200 tax entities to reduce their mills. “That puts a damper on how much taxes go up,” Kersgaard says. He admits that Damisch has a good point regarding TABOR-exempt counties and municipalities possibly dragging their feet on tax-relief legislation. But he says he tries to stay as optimistic as possible when it comes to local government. “There could be a temptation, in a job like this, to go, ‘I’m going to keep values high because the county needs the money and I need to hire more people,’” Kersgaard points out, adding that on the fl ip side, “There might be a temptation to say, ‘I want to try and keep values low, because I’m a homeowner and I don’t want to pay taxes.’ But those are both the wrong answers if you’re the county as- sessor,” he notes. Still, the right answer isn’t easy to come by. “Put yourself in the position of a fi re district, for instance, that is broke or basically broke,” Kersgaard says. “They don’t have the equip- ment they need to fi ght fi res. And they get a windfall because values are up 30 percent. They’re going to look at each other and go, ‘New fi re truck?’ So I get it. It’s not like Toby or [Arapahoe County] are wrong. I see things a little differently, but they’re not wrong.” Kersgaard suggests that what Colorado needs most right now is a better understand- ing “of what we’re doing with property tax” following the state’s recent wave of historically high valuations. “Instead of the legislature stepping in pretty much every single year these days and changing the as- sessment rate...couldn’t we just talk this stuff out and fi gure out a plan that will work year to year?” he asks. Roughly half of the tax money that Jef- fco collects goes to its one and only school district; the county gets a little under 25 percent, and then the rest is “divided by the other 220 districts,” Kersgaard says. “The 2023 Budget refl ects our continu- ing effort amid these ongoing challenges to provide proactive, fi rst-class services to the residents and businesses of our community, while constrained by TABOR-related revenue shortfalls exacerbated by the fi nancial con- sequences of a global pandemic,” said acting county manager Kate Newman in a message included with Jeffco’s 2023 Budget report. “Our ability to successfully navigate these post-pandemic challenges remains hindered by our budgetary limitations,” she added, noting that COVID-19 caused Jefferson County to “collect much less revenue in 2020,” and it’s still suffering as a result. “Our TABOR revenue limit must now incrementally grow from this reduced fund- ing for public services,” Newman continued. “The TABOR formula limits growth and ratchets down revenue during economic downturns and does not rebound during recovery, reducing our ability to respond to evolving public needs in a fl exible, sustain- able, and strategic way. Additionally, while population growth may be stabilizing, the formula used to determine TABOR revenue limits does not factor in population growth. Jefferson County must now also sustain and improve our infrastructure and service offerings for a population much larger than a decade ago. The total revenue the county was authorized to collect exceeded the TABOR limit by $17.3M in 2021, and as a result, the excess amount was refunded as required by law.” While TABOR has largely done what it was designed to do in limiting government spending, many people wonder at what cost. “In some ways, it’s at the cost of good government,” Kersgaard says. “I totally get people not trusting government — I get it. I get people not wanting to pay any more taxes than they have to pay. I mean, we’re all in that boat together. But I have a different view, I guess. I believe government has a purpose.” Jefferson County has fl oated a number of ballot measures in recent years that would have partially de-Bruced the county and allowed it to keep grant money and other revenue that now go against the TABOR cap. “The voters have said no every time we’ve asked them,” Kersgaard points out. “And that’s interesting. It’s not contradic- tory, necessarily. Jeffco has gone somewhat liberal lately, so they like voting for people who are somewhat liberal. But they’re not going to give us free rein, either. So I don’t know what the answer is.” According to CU researchers, there are a number of possible solutions for the TABOR restrictions and funding problems facing local governments. And all of them require getting voters on board. “We use interviews from four city offi cials to formulate case studies of municipalities that have successfully passed TABOR-re- lated ballot initiatives,” the CU researchers reported in 2015. “We discovered that with- out intervention, [TABOR’s] largest effect on local governments is not allowing them to provide high levels of basic services to its citizens. Our research suggests that mu- nicipalities wishing to pass a TABOR-related ballot initiative will be more effective if they pass revenue retention measures as opposed to tax increases, use ordinances rather than resolutions in the propositions, and avoid property taxes. TABOR can provide numer- ous diffi culties to local governments, but with careful planning and well-thought-out ballot measures, many of TABOR’s restrictions can be mitigated.” For their study, the CU researchers interviewed Cathy Noon, then mayor of Centennial; Kennedy, the chief fi nancial offi cer for the City and County of Denver at the time; Matt LeCerf, then town manager of Frederick; and Patrick Rondinelli, who was the city administrator in Ouray. “We believe that these four towns give us a good sample of different types of municipali- ties across Colorado,” the researchers said. “All four of these municipalities have passed different ‘de-Brucing’ measures of various scopes, and therefore have had the experi- ence of dealing with TABOR both with and without relief from the restrictions set forth.” When a municipality or county was strug- gling from TABOR restrictions, researchers determined that typically, the best option was to propose a ballot initiative that “grants the municipal government more revenue” instead of a tax increase. Overall, the CU researchers reported that diffi culties with TABOR and its restrictions can be “exacerbated” by public opinion. “If a local government decides to miti- gate the effects of TABOR, there are steps to take to pass a successful ballot measure removing some of TABOR’s restriction,” the researchers said. “By considering all aspects of how TABOR affects a community, and then creating a ballot measure that is crafted to the specifi c needs of a munici- pality and its populace, we can reduce the negative impacts that TABOR has on local governments.” Email the author at [email protected]. News continued from page 6 “My offi ce is underfunded; we need more people, we need to pay better salaries. Other counties pay a lot better than we do for similar jobs.”
