Propped out of our minds
The long-awaited cheat sheet for the Nov. 7, 2023, election

What do Taylor Swift, Travis Kelce, Beyoncé, Jay-Z, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett all have in common?

They all caught your attention long enough so that we could seamlessly slide into trying to explain convoluted tax reform bills for the 2023 election. See what we did there?

This year’s ballot is a slim one, yet doesn’t lack the dense, complicated jargon that comes with propositions. Indeed, Proposition HH, for instance, has been criticized by elected officials, the media and campaign organizers as a bill with far reaching implications – implications that no one can’t understand. So that should be a fun one. The other measure on the ballot, Proposition II, is far more straightforward.

And no matter how much this might make your eyes bleed, just enjoy the break, because we all know what’s coming next year…

Proposition HH

The 411: OK, this one might kill us. Here we go.

Remember the pandemic? Yeah, neither do we. But regardless, after the pandemic, property values in Colorado skyrocketed, which means people will have to pay higher property taxes next year.

To the rescue, supposedly, is Proposition HH, which aims to reduce these rising property taxes for the next decade. But it comes with a tradeoff: slowly sacrificing those nice TABOR tax refunds we all use for buying that piece of river gear we previously couldn’t justify.

But if only it were that simple. State lawmakers already have the authority to lower property taxes, so why put it on the ballot? Well, because state legislators want to keep more of Coloradoans’ money, which does require a vote.

In reality, whether Prop HH passes or not, property taxes will still rise next year. The proposition, however, would blunt that increase. By how much depends on where you live, what kind of property you own and what it’s worth. (There are actually online calculators where you can plug in the numbers for your situation.)

The catch is that Colorado residents have to give up some of their TABOR refund money. How the state uses that money is complicated. A small portion of it will go to local governments, while about 80% will go to schools.

While some residents may come ahead the first year Prop HH is in effect, down the line, TABOR refunds may completely disappear. By 2032, the state is estimated to collect $2.2 billion that would otherwise go back to taxpayers.

Also, one big misnomer is that Prop HH puts a cap on property tax increase, because local governments can still override the cap. And, after Prop HH expires in 10 years, lawmakers can extend it without requiring a vote. Most experts say residents stand to come out on the losing end financially should this happen.

And let’s not forget renters, who face rent increases and also would lose out on TABOR refunds. Prop HH, though, would require the state to set up a fund to help renters, with up to $20 million available each year.

Oh, that’s not all.

If passed, local governments must provide reasons for raising property tax rates in the future. This process might encourage some local governments to lower rates or issue refunds in prosperous years, potentially saving taxpayers around $500 million statewide. But, the actual savings might be less if governments opt to maintain rates despite public opinion.

In addition, Prop HH would make the “senior homestead” property tax exemption portable. Currently, it’s available to those 65 and older who’ve lived in the same home for 10 years, reducing taxable value by up to $100,000. With Prop HH, seniors can keep this benefit if they move, allowing downsizing without losing the exemption.

Those for it say: Prop HH offers long-term property tax relief, supports businesses and lets seniors downsize without losing tax benefits. The new property tax limit ensures accountability by involving the public and giving local governments flexibility to fund essential services. Prop HH benefits public schools by providing additional revenue and helps overcome spending limitations. It provides fairer TABOR refunds, benefiting low- and middle-income individuals, including renters, amid rising inflation and housing costs.

Those against it say: Prop HH raises taxes by reducing TABOR refunds, potentially increasing the state budget by billions. While it offers property tax relief, it may cost taxpayers more in lost TABOR refunds, and renters lose out. Local communities should handle property taxes, not a state-imposed limit. Prop HH complicates the property tax system, creating confusion and administrative burdens.

How we’re voting: Ummm, I don’t think we even still understand it. And therein lies our major issue with the proposition – asking the public to vote on something most people don’t understand. It’s 14 pages in the Blue Book and still doesn’t make sense to most experts and voters. Even Carrie Woodson, La Plata County’s Assessor, whom we hold in the highest regard, made comments at a recent county meeting about how most people can’t explain what the bill’s full impacts would be. If Woodson doesn’t have a full grasp on it, what chance do we have? That’s not good legislation, if you ask us.

Regardless, we’re going with a no vote. A lot of the proposition is well intentioned – tax relief in the face of historic property values, helping seniors and $20 million in rental assistance.

But the tax cuts could come at the expense of local governments, i.e. roads and bridges, fire departments and other critical community services. And in the end, we all pay for that. La Plata County, for instance, says it could lose around $500,000 if Prop HH passes (a rough estimate).

We recognize the need to address skyrocketing property values in Colorado, some of which are contained in Prop HH. But maybe next time, refine the proposal so the public can actually understand what they’re voting for.

Proposition II

The 411: Proposition II poses a rather simple question: Does the state get to use an almost $23.7 million surplus in tobacco taxes mainly for preschool programs, or does it have to give that money back to companies that sell tobacco?

In 2020, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure to raise taxes on things like tobacco and nicotine products with the goal to use the extra money from these taxes to help pay for a program that provides preschool education for all kids.

But it turns out that these taxes brought in more money than expected, around $24 million extra, in fact. So now, Colorado legislators are asking voters whether the government should be allowed to keep this extra money to further fund the preschool program.

If it passes: If Prop II passes, the extra money from the increased taxes on tobacco and nicotine products will be used to support Colorado’s existing preschool program. This program already provides at least 10 hours a week of preschool education for children the year before they start kindergarten, and it also offers instruction for 3- and 4-year-olds with disabilities. So, the extra funds will be used to improve and expand this existing preschool program, helping more children access quality early education.

If it fails: The state will need to give back almost $24 million to companies that sell cigarettes and nicotine products by giving them refunds and temporarily reducing the taxes they have to pay. The state will also lower the taxes on nicotine and tobacco products by 11.53% to make sure they don’t collect too much money in taxes in the future.

What supporters say: Supporters say that raising taxes on tobacco and nicotine products makes people use them less. They also believe that giving more money to Colorado’s preschool program will help kids do better in school and stay healthier.

What opponents say: There’s no organized group opposing Prop II. In arguments against the proposition, the Blue Book says that expanding the government further isn’t needed because the current funding for the preschool program can already offer more than the minimum 10 hours per week required by a previous law. It also says that increasing taxes puts an additional burden on people struggling with addiction.

How we’re voting: Yes. It seems to us this proposition helps families and children in the state access early education – without raising taxes (Prop II is not a new tax; it’s a question of whether the state can keep nearly $24 million in excess collections). We do get the argument that constantly raising taxes on things like tobacco unfairly targets people with addictions. But in this instance, the state is still maintaining current tax rates. And, there’s just no denying how important early childhood education is.