Teachers union, special districts argue against potential compromise on property tax ballot measures

Critics of two ballot measures aimed at reducing Coloradans' property obligations further than what lawmakers enacted this year have begun to pressure policymakers against negotiating with the initiatives' proponents and reaching a compromise.

Colorado's biggest teachers union and an association representing special taxing districts are pushing back against a potential special session that —assuming the parties successfully negotiate a compromise — would reduce homeowners and businesses' property tax liabilities and halt two measures headed for the November ballot.

A few days after Colorado Counties, Inc. held a special meeting to discuss the potential compromise that would result in halting the two property tax initiatives, the teachers union and the special districts sought to kill the idea of a compromise, arguing there are no assurances that proponents of the ballot measures wouldn't push for another set of tax cuts in the future — even if the parties came to an agreement now.

“We have little faith that an agreement will prevent the proponents from future proposals to cut taxes even more deeply,” Ann Terry, CEO of the Colorado Special District Association, said in a letter to legislative leaders.

“Past interactions on this issue lack the indications of negotiating a successful and final agreement. Painful compromises must sometimes be accepted, but not without a clear and stable resolution,” Terry said.

The group, which opposes the two ballot initiatives, represents taxing jurisdictions that provide services such as fire and rescue, water, sanitation, and parks and recreation. The entities levy taxes and rely on those revenue to operate.

The teachers' union traditionally supports measures that raise revenue or divert existing taxes to its priorities.

“We have little faith that an agreement will prevent the proponents from future proposals to cut taxes even more deeply,” Terry wrote in the letter obtained by Colorado Politics, claiming that “past interactions on this issue lack the indications of negotiating a successful and final agreement."

"Painful compromises must sometimes be accepted, but not without a clear and stable resolution,” Terry said.

The teachers union listed familiar arguments against the two tax measures.

“It is frustrating that despite the good faith effort for compromise, Advance Colorado continues to demand deeper cuts to local property tax, risking the return of the BS factor, cuts to vital local public services, and potential statewide funding cuts,” Kevin Vick, president of the Colorado Education Association, wrote in an Aug. 5 letter to Gov. Jared Polis and members of the legislature. The letter was obtained by Colorado Politics.

“This is especially frustrating as polling shows voters are troubled by the 50/108 measures and do not consolidate behind them. It is no wonder that Mr. Michael Fields and Advance Colorado are scrambling for a deal,” Vick said.

Three of those surveys were commissioned by Progress Now Colorado, Bell Action Network and the Colorado Education Association.

In its letter, the union demanded that any deal must not result in "re-utilizing" the "budget stabilization" factor, the mechanism used by lawmakers to cut school funding. Those "obligations" are set to get paid off in the state's 2024-25 budget.

The group said it will also demand that the framework agreed to under Senate Bill 24-233 be maintained, including the continued decoupling of the school assessment rates.

SB 233 was the compromise legislation that dealt with soaring property taxes. Advance Colorado and other critics said the measure failed to provide sufficient relief to homeowners and businesses, which is why they are pushing for the two ballot initiatives — Propositions 108 and 50 — that are now the subject of negotiations.

Also backed by Colorado Concern, Proposition 108 seeks to reduce assessment rates to 5.7% for residential properties and 24% for commercial properties. Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment, would cap tax revenue growth to 4% and require voter approval for local government to retain dollars above the limit.

Finally, the union said it will also demand that “a public commitment be made by Mr. Fields and Advance Colorado to withdraw their current initiatives (#208 and #50) and that they will not pursue any additional property tax-related initiatives in the future.”

The CEA and Kevin Vick for did not return Colorado Politics' request for comment.

Terry said special districts are worried that a compromise between Advance Colorado, lawmakers and other parties will do more harm than good, especially since very little data has been offered regarding what the potential effects might be on local government.

“So, ideally, we'd like to see 108 and 50 come off (the ballot), but not at the detriment of local government's revenues and not at the detriment to local government's ability to continue to provide services to their respective communities,” Terry said. “We don't wanna see libraries unable to be open and Park and Rec districts have to cut back on programs that have successfully kept kids in school and away from bad decisions.

Health service districts, assisted living for seniors, and rural fire and ambulance districts would also be at risk, she said.

Teller County Commissioner Robert Campbell, who attended the Colorado Counties Inc. special meeting on Aug. 2, told Colorado Politics that 64 of the 66 attendees would favor a special session compromise. However, the group’s support would be contingent upon meeting some very specific terms.

“The qualifiers that everybody agreed to would be that the special session be limited in scope to just this property tax deal, Mr. Fields making a public statement that he would withdraw and that this wouldn’t be just a 6-month fix and only (for Fields) to come back and do another initiative right away because part of this is counties have to be able to plan. We have to have some dependability in our system.”

While Terry and her organization expressed gratitude for being included in discussions for an alternative framework, she said special districts are concerned for potential changes to the property tax system without adequate time for analysis.

“They (local governments) need to have predictable and accountable resources so that they can plan their budget just like the state wants to plan their budget each and every year,” she said.

Proponents have made clear that any deal would require a special session of the legislature.

Sources familiar with the negotiations suggest that special session, if called, would occur during the last week of August.

The parties face a Sept. 4 deadline to remove initiatives from the November ballot.