Face the State

Comments Made During House Floor Debate on Ritter Tax Proposal
Face the State Staff Report

A Democrat state lawmaker justified his support for raising most Coloradans’ property taxes by claiming that his own property tax bill is too low.

Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, asserted he didn’t pay enough in property taxes on the floor of the Colorado House Thursday. Riesberg joined 32 other legislators—mostly Democrats—in voting to increase taxes for most Colorado property owners. Yet Riesberg, a Greeley resident, stands to receive a property tax cut under the proposal.

Riesberg’s comments came in response to a floor speech by Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, who stated he has yet to meet a constituent in his district, or anyone in the state, who believes their property taxes are too low.

“Representative Lundberg, you and I need to meet,” said Riesberg. “My property taxes are too low.”

Gov. Bill Ritter’s self-styled “Colorado Children’s Amendment” would raise taxes on property owners in 104 of the state’s 178 school districts. Under the latest version of the proposal voted on in the House, property owners in 33 districts would receive some measure of tax relief. Greeley Public Schools, where Riesberg’s listed address resides, is one of the 33 districts.

Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, sponsored an amendment to remove the tax proposal, which had been tacked on to the annual school finance bill in committee. Some of Gardner’s constituents would pay an estimated 68 percent more in property taxes if the measure wins final approval in both the House and the Senate. Gardner’s opponents claim the measure does not equate to a tax increase.

“If I’m paying more next year with this proposal than I am without this proposal, then this is a tax increase,” Gardner said.

Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Golden, echoed Gardner’s argument. “You can call it a duck, you can call it a daisy, but to the people of Colorado it’s going to feel like a tax increase,” he said.

Nonpartisan legislative staff estimate the proposal would raise more than $50 million next year, with a total of more than $1.7 billion in new revenue over the next decade. Ritter and other Democrats have advertised the plan as a way to shore up the State Education Fund, while simultaneously introducing new, costly preschool programs.

A February report by legislative staff disagreed with the governor’s assessment and showed that the fund could remain solvent with a slight boost from the state treasury’s general fund. Attorney General John Suthers has advised Governor Ritter and legislative leadership that he believes the measure to be a tax increase which requires a vote of the people.

Bill sponsor Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, likened the tax proposal to the removal of an “obsolete provision” in state law.

During the debate, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, rebuffed some popular claims about the state’s school spending amendment. Amendment 23, approved by voters in 2000, was advertised as a way to fix the alleged erosion of public school funding during the 1990s. But Pommer said Thursday that the amendment has “decreased the acceleration of spending on K-12 education,” and added he had evidence to support his claim.

Both Monday at an education committee meeting and Thursday on the House floor, Pommer admitted that the rate of spending increases on Colorado schools has actually declined since 2000. As of press time, the source of Pommer’s data remains unclear.

Democrat state Treasurer Cary Kennedy, a co-author of Amendment 23, testified in support of the proposal at Monday’s committee meeting. She said the tax increase was needed to rescue the State Education Fund—created by Amendment 23—from bankruptcy.

The proposal would shift more of the school funding burden from state sources to local sources. Data from the Colorado Department of Education show that both state and local per-pupil funding of K-12 education have increased significantly since at least 1997.

One committee member asked Kennedy if her support of Ritter’s plan equated with an admission that her amendment was flawed since its mandated spending increases apparently cannot be sustained with sufficient revenues. She did not answer the question.