.png){kind=logo}
Aug 20, 2024
This story was originally published in the Colorado Sun here.
Over my eight years representing Jefferson County in the state House, I’ve learned that good policy is about thoughtful stakeholding, delicate balancing, and, ultimately, hard choices. As the state embarks on yet another special legislative session on property taxes, those shaping this round of policy solutions should keep in mind the lessons we’ve already learned.
Those are: All voices — including those not in the room — need to be considered, not just those with the resources to make their voices the loudest. Despite posturing to the contrary, proponents of the extreme, badly crafted measures are seeing the writing on the wall and are eager for a deal. And, state-driven policy on issues that are inherently local is fraught with problems. It needs to stop.
Let’s start with the consensus-driven process that created Senate Bill 233, the bipartisan property tax legislation we passed this year that will lower property taxes by $1 billion. Even as I struggled with some of the sacrifices we had to make to maintain strong support from across the aisle, the bill provides meaningful property tax cuts and a cap on future growth without undermining K-12 funding, which is still well below the national average.
And it delivers more property tax relief to regular folks and small businesses without giving exorbitant tax breaks to the wealthiest homeowners and largest corporations. Importantly, it was the result of countless hours of public discussion. Fairness and inclusion should continue to be the guideposts for any new policy emerging from the special session.
Lawmakers should not feel as though they need to put the interests of everyday Coloradans on the back burner in order to kowtow to whomever is bankrolling Initiatives 50 and 108, the chaotic conservative measures that would create a fiscal trainwreck at the state and local levels.
While it’s understandable that many stakeholders are afraid of the possibility that these measures might pass in November, polling shows they are headed toward defeat. I think proponents of 50 and 108 know that too. Otherwise, why would they express an openness to relatively small cuts in exchange for pulling down their ballot measures?
I’ve always thought that the classic negotiation strategy of staking out an extreme position and wiggling back toward a middle ground was silly. Shouldn’t grown-ups just be able to sit down, put their cards on table, discuss their differences, and let the democratically elected representatives cast their votes?
But that’s never what happens, because that’s not what serves the special interests. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a corporate lobbyist bluff their way through a negotiation. They come in hot, suggesting they have the upper hand and convincing legislators that the only way to get the votes for a bill is to cut a deal.
Are the proponents of 50 and 108 bluffing? I don’t know. Maybe they’re willing to bankrupt state and local governments to prove a point. But I think they very much want a deal so they can claim victory for cutting taxes without having to spend millions of dollars on a campaign that may or may not succeed.
The third lesson we should take from the thoughtful deliberations that went into crafting Senate Bill 233 centers on local control.
What we need is stable state policy, restoring true local control to our duly-elected city councilors, county commissioners and district board members. They have the tools to engage with their voters and balance the impact of taxes with the needs of public services. And these communities are all different.
Some have more residential while some have more commercial properties. Many rural counties didn’t see significant home value growth, and the property tax cuts hurt their ability to provide services when their constituents did not experience the same property tax increases seen elsewhere.
Many local governments had passed voter-approved revenue changes in previous years. But many other local governments had never passed revenue increases, meaning their constituents were paying lower taxes to begin with. The 2023 value increases finally caught them up with their neighbors and allowed for investments that had been deferred for years, if not decades.
Additional state-driven property tax cuts will have wildly different impacts across our state, and they will be permanent. That means that economic downturns could have serious consequences in communities.
Our local leaders, on the other hand, have the tools to temporarily lower their mill levies in times like these. And they have the ability to focus on the needs of their own communities, allowing them to find the sweet spot between additional tax relief and funding their unmet needs.
So, if the state is going to have one last hurrah in property tax policy, then fine. We’re well positioned to get a good deal that prioritizes regular folks and carefully balances statewide priorities like K-12 and higher education funding. But this should be the very last time.
After that, we must restore local control over property taxes.
Chris deGruy Kennedy of Lakewood was one of the prime sponsors of Senate Bill 233 and outgoing Colorado House Speaker Pro Tem; he is now the president and CEO of the Bell Policy Center.