what kind of colorado do you want we can decide n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
What Kind of Colorado Do You Want: We Can Decide PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
What Kind of Colorado Do You Want: We Can Decide

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

What Kind of Colorado Do You Want: We Can Decide - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 99 Views
  • Uploaded on

What Kind of Colorado Do You Want: We Can Decide. Goals for Today’s Presentation. Review the 3 ballot proposals that you will vote on in November Review the impact of the proposals on state and local public services. Describe what to do and where to go for further information on them.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'What Kind of Colorado Do You Want: We Can Decide' - ifama


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
goals for today s presentation
Goals for Today’s Presentation

Review the 3 ballot proposals that you will vote on in November

Review the impact of the proposals on state and local public services.

Describe what to do and where to go for further information on them.

colorado today
Colorado Today

Public investments are stretched to the breaking point

Economy and jobs are beginning to recover

We are facing three proposals that will further cut essential community services and threaten fragile economic gains

colorado budget shortfalls to date
Colorado Budget Shortfalls to Date
  • FY2008-09, FY 2009-10, FY2010-11
    • $4.4 Billion
    • Likely to increase by $300 million before the end of FY2010-11*
  • Amendment related shortfall estimate:
    • Proposals may accumulate a $5.5 billion annual budget shortfall when fully implemented
    • State ($2.1 billion)
    • Local government ($3.4 billion)**

*Source: Todd Saliman, Director Colorado OSPB, Colorado School Finance Project Advisory Committee, October 1, 2010 ,

** Source: Legislative Council, July 8, 2010 Memorandum and Bell Policy Amendment 61 Preliminary Analysis

3 proposals on 2010 ballot
3 Proposals on 2010 Ballot

Prop 101: Slashes local and state support for public services, in particular transportation and K-12 education

A60: Overturns prior local elections, cuts local support for schools, charges new taxes on many public services

A61: Cripples our economy by restricting common-sense investment in our infrastructure

proposition 101
Proposition 101
  • State income tax
      • Cut to 4.5% immediately - .1% reductions to 3.5%
  • Motor Vehicle taxes and fees
      • Specific Ownership Taxes on vehicles reduced over four years to $2/new and $1/used (1919 levels)
      • License fees go to $10 flat rate
      • Eliminates state and local taxes on vehicle rentals and leases
      • If you buy a car over four years exempts first $10k on vehicle values from state and local sales tax
  • Telecommunications fees
      • All state and local telecommunications charges eliminated except for 911
proposition 1011
Proposition 101

When fully implemented, cuts state General Fund revenues for schools, colleges and universities, health, human services, corrections and other operating budgets by 23% (legislature will determine how to distribute these cuts).

Cuts state funding for roads and bridges by 27% from current levels. Local funding cuts will vary by jurisdiction.

Cuts general revenues to cities, counties and school districts throughout Colorado by more than $900 million per year.

proposition 1012
Proposition 101

The state universal services charge used to subsidize low-income access to telecommunications in rural areas will be reduced by $60 million per year

Eliminates the telecommunications relay services charge which raises about $2 million a year to subsidize access to telecommunications for disabled individuals. $250,000 of that is provided to the Reading Services for the Blind Cash Fund

Eliminates $6 million in the first year for various state parks and recreation programs and services.

Eliminates $1.3 million annually for training and certification of law enforcement officials.

denver county examples
Denver County Examples

Ownership Taxes

Under Prop 101, funding would be cut by 98.6 percent

from 2010 to 2014

2009 Under Prop 101

Denver Public Schools* $22.4 million $317,143

City-County of Denver $12.9 million $182,260

Special districts $2.2 million $31,213

Police-fire pensions: $1.6 million $22,295

Urban flood control $314,798 $4,459

denver county examples1
Denver County Examples
  • Specific Ownership Taxes to School Districts
    • DPS $395 to $6.00 per student
  • Safety Construction Projects Under FASTER
    • University Blvd at Hampden – Intersection improvements
    • Wadsworth at Coalmine – Intersection improvements
denver county bridge repair under faster
Denver County Bridge Repair under FASTER

I-70 over Sand Creek

SH 88 over RR, Lakewood Gulch

I-25 over US 85

I-25 over S. Platte

I-70 over US 6

Pecos St. over I-70

I-70 over UP RR

Havana over Cherry Creek

US 6 over S. Platte

US 287 over US 40

US 6 over Bryant St.

US 6 over BNSF RR

SH 2 over BNSF RR

Perry St. over US 6

amendment 60
Amendment 60
  • Cuts local support for public schools in half by 2020.
  • Requires the state to make up the difference out of the General Fund at a cost of $1.6 billion (see Prop 101).
  • Immediately sunsets all local “de-brucing” elections affecting property taxes. (Elections that allow districts to retain revenue over the TABOR Cap)
  • Limits future “de-brucings” to 4 years and future tax increases to 10 years.
  • Requires enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes that may translate to higher fees : CU, DIA, Denver Water, E-470
amendment 61
Amendment 61
  • Bans the use of any kind of debt financing by the state of Colorado, including:
    • Certificates of Participation used for roads and buildings
    • Short-term financing vehicles the Treasurer uses to manage cash flow for the state and local school districts
  • Reduces local government debt financing limits to 10 percent of assessed taxable value of real property
  • 36 school districts, representing almost half of all students statewide, exceed limit and can’t build new schools or repair existing ones –
amendment 611
Amendment 61
  • City and County of Denver faces an 18 year moratorium on new bond elections (Most school districts face an 8 year moratorium).
  • Local bonded debt must be repaid within 10 years
  • Requires local governments to automatically cut tax rates (equal to the average annual payment) when debts are repaid even if the borrowing was repaid from a source other than taxes.
slide15

Overview of combined impact

  • $5.5 billion annually cut from state and local government revenues when fully implemented
  • 73,000 primary jobs lost – half in the private sector
  • Teachers cut, kids in much larger classes
  • Increased burden on small business and working families
  • Paying now for decades of benefits
  • Unintended consequences?
slide16

Overview of combined impact

  • Non-partisan Legislative Council staff projects when fully implemented 99% of state’s operating budget will go to K-12 education - no money for courts, prisons, Medicaid, community colleges, parks, public safety or anything else.
  • Not constitutional – we must fund the court system, prisons, Medicaid
  • This means that all areas of state government, including K-12 education will be cut dramatically severely limiting our ability to invest in public systems that promote strong communities and economic growth.
state general fund before and after assuming full implementation in fiscal year 2011
State General Fund Before and AfterAssuming Full Implementation in Fiscal Year 2011

$7.0 Billion

$4.8 Billion

overview of combined impact healthcare
Overview of combined impact:Healthcare
  • If all 3 amendments passed:
    • Colorado could loose between 9,800 and 11,760 healthcare jobs *
    • General Fund appropriation to HCPF could be reduced by 57% from current levels if the provisions of the measures were strictly adhered to **
    • A 57% reduction would require a cut of $702 million from the HCPF budget or an amount equal to 88% of the Medicaid General Fund budget

* Source: Sobanet, Henry, Working Paper on Proposition 101, Amendments 60 and 61, July 8, 2010

** if K-12 education appropriations are held harmless Source COFPI 60, 61, 101 Fact Sheet July 22, 2010

overview of combined impact healthcare cont
Overview of combined impact:Healthcare (cont.)

The following line items add up to $347 million:*

  • Mental Health ($79 million)
  • Indigent Care ($20 million)
  • “Other Medical Programs” ($59 million)
  • DHS Medicaid-funded programs ($159 million)
  • A35 cash funds to backfill GF** ($30 million)

*Source: Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, Fact Sheet: Amendment 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 and Healthcare, July 22, 2010

**Amendment 35 Tobacco tax funds designated for health care services and tobacco education

overview of combined impact healthcare cont1
Overview of combined impact:Healthcare (cont.)
  • Medicaid and CHP+
    • FMAP: MOE and loss of at least $535 million matching federal funds*
    • Reductions in payment to providers
    • Loss of healthcare eligibility
    • Increased use of Emergency Room
    • Greater uncompensated care
    • Increased costs for the insured
    • *Source: Colorado Hospital Association Fact Sheet
overview of combined impact healthcare cont2
Overview of combined impact:Healthcare (cont.)
  • Public and non-profit hospitals, districts, and facilities
    • Amendment 60 and Proposition 101 may reduce operating revenue for hospital districts
    • Amendment 60 may require Hospitals to pay property taxes
    • Amendment 61 will create significant obstacles for financing public and non-profit hospital, long term care, and clinic replacement or expansion
    • Amendment 61 will eliminate financing vehicles for medical equipment and technology upgrades
    • Amendment 61 creates a disadvantage for public and non-profit facilities versus for profit health care
denver post polling data october 4 2010
Denver Post Polling DataOctober 4, 2010

Summary of Statewide Fiscal and Tax Policy Ballot Issues

Ballot ProposalUndecided/Don’t Vote

Amendment 60, cuts property tax 42%

Amendment 61, limits debt 40%

Proposition 101, cuts income, 44%

telecom, and auto taxes/fees

Source: Denver Post, “Colorado voters down on Obama, several statewide ballot issues”, October 4, 2010

statewide editorial board opposition
Statewide Editorial Board Opposition

Denver Post, Editorial, 2/28/10:“…Prop 101, A60 and A61 might be tempting for some voters. But they would be devastating for Colorado…the handiwork of anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce and others, would effectively cripple government.”

Denver Post, Editorial, 7/7/10

“ Don't be fooled, Colorado. Amendments 60 and 61 and Prop 101 are not smart budget-cutting measures. They're out to cripple Colorado, and should be rejected at the polls

Grand Junction Sentinel, Editorial, 11/24/09:

“…whether through the courts or at the ballot box, these three measures are government-bashing turkeys that deserve to be cut to pieces like a fat Butterball on the holiday table.”

Barry Noreen, Colorado Springs Gazette, 6/20/2010

“Bruce’s Amendment 61 is just plain wacky… Amendment 61 is the latest insane, mean-spirited attack on Coloradans.

bi partisan opposition
Bi-Partisan Opposition

Governor Ritter:

“Coloradans must unite against three of the most backward-thinking ballot measures this state has ever seen. Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61 would shut down colleges and prisons, increase class sizes, put thousands of teachers out of work, and prevent the repair of unsafe roads and bridges.”

Former Governor Bill Owens:

“As a fiscal conservative — I oppose Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101”

“All Coloradans — conservatives, moderates and liberals — should vote "no" on these damaging proposals.”

Rep Carole Murray (R) District 45:

“What these issues have done is flesh out where those of us who are pretty conservative would draw the line, and I would say I draw the line at anarchy

Former Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry:

“I don’t support any of the initiatives. ...Those of us who support TABOR want to make clear that those initiatives are just bad public policy.”

bi partisan opposition1
Bi-Partisan Opposition

Republican Legislators:

2/3 of all republican state legislators have signed a letter opposing all three ballot initiatives

The Candidates for Governor:

Mayor Hickenlooper opposes 60, 61, and 101

Dan Maes opposes 61 and 101 but supports Amendment 60

Tom Tancredo opposes 61 but supports 60 and 101

465 groups oppose 60 61 and 101 as of 10 02 10 a b only
465 Groups Oppose 60, 61 and 101As of 10/02/10 (A-B only)
  • Associated General Contractors of Colorado
  • Association of Colorado State Patrol Professionals
  • Aurora Chamber of Commerce
  • Aurora Economic Development Council
  • Aurora Firefighters Local 1290
  • Aurora High Point at DIA Metropolitan District
  • Aurora Public Schools
  • Autism Society of Colorado
  • Avista Adventist Hospital
  • Avon Town Council
  • Basalt Town Council
  • Beacon Point Metropolitan District
  • Bell Action Network
  • Bell Policy Center
  • Bella Energy
  • Berthoud Board of Trustees
  • Boulder Chamber
  • Boulder City Council
  • Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau
  • Boulder Economic Council
  • lBoulder Valley School District RE-2 Board of Education
  • Boyd Ponds Metropolitan District 1
  • Boyd Ponds Metropolitan District 2
  • Progressive 15
  • State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education
  • Visit Denver Visitor and Convention Bureau
  • 36 Commuting Solutions
  • 9to5, National Association of Working Women - Colorado
  • A+ Denver
  • Adams 12 Five Star Schools
  • Adams County Economic Development (ACED)
  • Adams County School District 14
  • Advocacy Denver
  • AdvocacyDenver, Inc
  • All Families Deserve a Chance Coalition
  • Alliance
  • Alliance for Sustainable Colorado
  • America Votes - Colorado
  • American Association of University Women (AAUW) Colorado
  • American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
  • American Federation of Teachers (AFT) - Colorado
  • American Institute of Architects, Colorado Component
  • American Planning Association - Colorado Chapter
  • American Society of Civil Engineers - Southern Colorado Branch
  • American Society of Engineers - Colorado Section
  • American Subcontractors Association of Colorado
  • Applewood Business Association
  • Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners
  • Arapahoe Library District
  • Ariel Clinical Services
  • Artemis
  • Arts for Colorado
  • Arvada Chamber of Commerce
  • Arvada Economic Development Association
  • Ask-A-Nurse
  • Aspen Chamber Resort Association
  • Aspen City Council
  • Aspen School District
  • Associated Builders and Contractors, Rocky Mountain Chapter
  • AARP
  • Action 22
  • Associated General Contractors of Colorado
  • CH2MHILL
  • Charter School Institute
  • Club 20
  • Colorado AFL-CIO
  • Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry
  • Colorado Competitive Council
  • Colorado Concern
  • Colorado Corn Growers Association
  • Colorado Dairy Farmers
  • Colorado Education Association
  • Colorado Farm Bureau
  • Colorado High School Activities Association
  • Colorado Rural Electric Association
  • Colorado Space Coalition
  • Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
  • Economic Development Council of Colorado
  • Flight for Life
  • Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce
  • Jefferson Economic Council
  • Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District
  • Mile High United Way
  • NAIOP - National Association of Industrial and Office Parks
what s needed
What’s Needed

Organized groups of committed local leaders to educate their communities about these measures and what is at stake locally

Communication about the specific, tangible, local impacts

Coordination of resources using local knowledge and statewide understanding

Exchange of information so any solutions are informed by what is happening on the ground around Colorado

The ability to respond quickly, with comprehensive research and tools to new challenges as they arise

find out what s happening
Find Out What’s Happening

www.Lookingforwardcolorado.com – Looking Forward Collaborative site

www.donthurtcolorado.com – campaign site

www.coloradoreformroundtable.com – Broad based coalition focused on fiscal and constitutional reform

www.leg.state.co.us/ - Legislative Council site accessed here – Bluebook and other memos

www.COtaxreforms.com – Proponents site

slide29

Data for this presentation provided by: Bell Policy CenterColorado Fiscal Policy InstituteColorado Children’s CampaignThank you!