Loading...
TC Res. No. 2005-29 SUPPORTING REFERENDA C AND D THE COLORADO ECONOMICTOWN OF AVON, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 29-05 Series of 2005 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REFERENDA C AND D THE COLORADO ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN WHEREAS, state voters will have the opportunity November 1 to advance the quality of life and economic health of Coloradoans by supporting Referenda C and D, known together as the Colorado Economic Recovery Plan; and WHEREAS, during and since the recent recession the state has cut spending severely, and state spending cannot be restored to pre-recession levels without voter approval even though state revenues have recovered from the recession; and WHEREAS, municipal revenues and programs are adversely affected whenever state finances are in crisis, and municipal revenues and programs, as well as those of other local governments, will be severely affected if statewide voters do not approve Referendum C; and WHEREAS, Referendum C would provide funding for transportation, education, health care, and police and fire retirement plans; and WHEREAS, Referendum C permits the state to retain excess revenues for five years and eliminates the "ratchet" effect of TAB OR following economic downturns, without revising TABOR or raising taxes; and WHEREAS, Referendum D would accelerate construction and other expenditures for highways and bridges, K- 12 and higher education facilities, and police and fire retirement plans through the issuance of voter approved bonds; and WHEREAS, Referenda C and D utilize the opportunity afforded voters by TAB OR for the state to retain excess revenue in order to provide services in the same manner as local voters in our community and throughout Colorado have done; , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado endorses state referenda C and D and urges its citizens to vote for both measures. Adopted this 26t' day of iS L~~ dUil it , Attep Pa c enny, T Clerk TC AVON, COL DO Wolfe, Mayor Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Jacqueline Halbumt, Assistant Town Manager Date: July 21, 2005 - Re: Referenda C & D Summary: Both the Board of County Commissioners and CML,have requested that the Town of Avon adopt a resolution in support of Referenda C and D. We have attached information on what is being called the "Colorado Economic Recovery Plan" by some and the "Pickpocket Amendment" by others. Discussion: In the interest of allowing Council members to make an informed decision whether or not they support Referenda C &D, we have attached information from both proponents and opponents of the measures. As described by CML, Referendum C permits the state to retain excess revenues for 5 years and eliminates the ratchet effect of TABOR following economic downturns without revising TABOR or raising taxes. _ Referendum D would accelerate construction and other expenditures for highways and bridges, K-12 and higher education facilities and police and fire retirement plans through the issuance of voter approved bonds. The multi-year financial obligations spelled out in Referendum D can only be undertaken if the voters approve both C and D. If Ref C passes and Ref D does not, the bonds cannot be issued. Similarly, if Ref D passes, but Ref C does not, the bonds cannot be issued. Background: The TABOR Amendment was enacted in 1992 after failing to pass in 1988 and 1990. TABOR's stated purpose is to "restrain most the growth of government." "Growth of government" is defined as growth in government tax revenue. It is determined through a formula, which uses a baseline of government revenue received in 1992. The town of Avon electors voted to temporarily "de-bruce" in 1994 for 4 years. In 1997, voters once again passed the measure to allow Avon to permanently collect, retain and spend whatever revenues it received in 1998 and each year thereafter. Recommendation: Resolution No. 29-05, "A resolution supporting Referenda C and D, the Colorado Economic Recovery Plan" is, attached for your consideration. It urges citizens to support and vote for both measures. If the Council does not support the measures or decides to remain silent on the issue, we recommend you simply remove the resolution from the agenda Town Manager Comments: Attachments: A - Resolution No. 29-05, A Resolution Supporting Referenda C & D B - CML Summary of Referenda C & D C - CML Campaign Reform Law D - Taxincrease.org Summary of Referenda C & D E - Freedomworks.org Summary of Referenda C & D • Page 2 1'r, AWammo^-t 4 TOWN OF AVON - RESOLUTION NO. 29-05 Series of 2005 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REFERENDA C AND D THE COLORADO ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN WHEREAS, state voters will have the opportunity November 1 to advance the quality of life and economic health of Coloradoans by supporting Referenda C and D, ]mown together as the Colorado Economic Recovery Plan; and WHEREAS, during and since the recent recession the state has cut spending severely, and state spending cannot be restored to pre-recession levels without voter approval, even though state revenues have recovered from the recession; and WHEREAS, municipal revenues and programs are adversely affected whenever state finances are in crisis, and municipal revenues and programs, as well as those of other local governments, will be severely affected.if statewide voters do riot approve Referendum C; and WHEREAS, Referendum C would provide funding for-transportation, education, health care, and police and fire retirement plans; and WHEREAS, -Referendum C permits,the state to retain excess revenues for five years and eliminates the "ratchet" effect of TAB OR following economic downturns, without revising TABOR or raising taxes; and WHEREAS, Referendum D would accelerate construction and other expenditures for highways and bridges, K- 12 and higher education facilities, and police and fire retirement plans through the issuance of voter approved bonds; and WHEREAS, Referenda C and D utilize the opportunity afforded voters by TAB OR for the, state _ to retain excess revenue in order to provide services in the same manner as local voters in our community and throughout Colorado have done; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado endorses state referenda C and D and urges its citizens to vote for both measure's.' Adopted this 260'day of July, 2005 TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF AVON Ronald C Wolfe, Mayor" Attest: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk CML 1144 Sherman Street* Denver, CO 80203-2207 *Phone (303) 811-6411* Fax (303) 860-8175 * www.cml.org Summary of Referenda C & D The Colorado Economic Recovery Plan Referendum C - RetaininE State Revenues • Allows the State to retain all revenue above existing limits for five years - from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010. • Eliminates the current "ratchet effect" by allowing the State to retain a capped amount of additional funds beyond 2010 and each year thereafter - basically "rebasing" the limit to the year with the highest revenues from 2005-2010 and allows for annual increases equal to growth plus inflation. • Requires retained revenues to be spent only for: ■ K-12 education: textbooks, libraries, kindergarten, pre-school, and in- classroom instruction. • Healthcare for elderly, low-income, and disabled populations; programs to lower health insurance costs for individuals and small businesses. ■ Universities, Colleges, and Community, Colleges for need and merit based financial assistance and the College Opportunity Fund. ■ Repayment of Referendum D bonds for road and bridge projects, educational facilities improvements, and firefighter and police retirement plans. • Requires an annual report on how these revenues are spent. Referendum D.- Critical needs be If approved by voters and Referendum C passes, authorizes the state to bond up to $2.07 billion, depending on market conditions, with bond proceeds in the following amounts to be directed to the following purposes: • $1.2 billion to repair and replace highways and bridges and accelerate CDOT's strategic projects. • $147 million for K-12 school construction, repair, maintenance, etc. • $50 million to for construction, repair, maintenance, etc. of state university, college and community college facilities. • $175 million to be credited to fire and police members' retirement fund to pay off the state's share of unfunded liabilities. Also allows the state to retain an additional $100 million in 2011 for debt-service on bonds. Temporary income tax cut in future years Beginning in 2011, grants an income tax cut from 4.63 percent to 4.5 percent on a year-by-year basis if Referendum C is approved by voters and revenues are sufficient to cover the anticipated tax reduction. More information is available from the Vote Yes on C & D campaign: www.votevesonc-d.com or by calling 303-861-0217. a Talking Points in Support of Referenda C and D • Referendum C does not change the state constitution or TABOR. This proposal uses the same mechanisms used successfully by local governments to ask voters to retain revenues and use those funds to improve services, facilities and infrastructure. • Due to the State's financial crisis brought on by the recent economic downturn that - followed the 9/11 tragedies, the state has not had excess funds to refund through TABOR. While asking voters to forego possible TABOR refunds, the proposal, does not raise tax -rates. This proposal does not affect individuals' state or federal income tax refunds. • The proposal is a bipartisan compromise and was developed in partnership with _ Governor Owens, the Democratic legislative leadership and Democrat and Republican lawmakers. • Colorado is known for its boom and bust economy and is losing ground to other states in economic development. Referendum C will allow the state to remain competitive by improving services and infrastructure that make Colorado attractive to business and promote a healthy economy. Referendum C does not deal directly with the constraints imposed by TABOR at .the local level, but as the state is able to properly fund programs and services, it relieves.the pressures experienced by many local governments from reduced funding for programs, services, and grants and increased state fees that local governments have had to pay. • Voters are being asked to forego any TABOR refunds for five years and instead direct those funds to improve deteriorating highways and bridges across the state, K-12 education and higher education, and health care, and to pay the State's obligation for unfunded police and fire retirement liabilities. • The current ratchet-effect in TABOR following economic downturns will be eliminated for the state by resetting the state's revenue limit to the best revenue year during the,five- year time-out and allow annual adjustments to the limit for population growth. and inflation. It allows the state to catch-up on road and bridge improvements, education and health care and recover after future, recessions. • Referenda C and D will not restore all of the programs and services cut in recent years, but are important steps to improving the state's infrastructure and services and improving the quality of life for all Coloradoans. • Referendum D, the bonding proposal, allows the state to advance capital improvements and expenditures that may otherwise take decades to fund. _ Specifically,. the proposal advances funding for: o Highways and bridges across the state. o College, university and community college facilities. o Public school facilities o . Police and firefighter retirement plans. The Colorado economic recovery plan Why local officials should encourage voters , to 'suppo,rt~ Referenda C and D By Ken Bueche, executive director, and Mike Braaten, intergovernmen- tal affairs specialist Thanks to the bipartisan leader- ship of Gov. Bill Owens and legislators, on Nov. 1 Col- orado voters will have the opportu- nity, without amending TABOR or raising taxes, to allow state govern- ment services and funding to be restored roughly to pre-recession levels, thereby advancing Colorado's economy and enhancing Coloradans' quality of life. Referenda C and D will move Colorado forward by fitnding state transportation, education and health- care programs. That is reason enough for local officials to support the measures. However, while Refer- enda C and D directly address only state finances, the measures would indirectly benefit local programs and revenues. Consequently, it is critical that local officials support the meas- ures and explain their importance to local voters. Over the past two years, CML staff has been networking with pub- lic officials and others analyzing problems that TABOR and related factors have presented for state and local govemment, services and iden- tifying possible solutions. The fol- lowing highlights some of our find- ings related to state financial problems and their effects on munic- ipalities and local citizens. Background TABOR is a multiple-subject constitutional limitation on state and local finances.-Its most prominent feature, and the one that primarily influenced public support in 1992, requires any new or increased tax to receive prior voter approval. This 12 feature has not been as problematic as a second feature - the revenue limit. The second feature limits rev- enues that state and local govern- ments may retain to the prior year's revenues adjusted for changes in the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index and growth of the entity. For the state, "growth" equals increases in population. This revenue-limit feature has proven particularly prob lematic due to the recent recession. It will create severe problems in the future for state and local services, if a "time-out" from the state's revenue limit is not approved by voters. Problems created by the TABOR revenue limits The TABOR revenue limits are regarded by most observers as the single most important limitation in need of voter action. The following are three reasons why Referendum C is needed. 1. TABOR creates a permanent "ratchet-down" problem whenever revenues decline or fail to grow at the rate permitted by the CPI and growth allowances. This occurs because the next year's revenue allowance must be based on the prior year's actual revenue. Thus, follow- ing a slow or declining revenue situ- ationJuture allowable revenues can never catch up. It is like having one bad year of personal earnings and never being able to restore your per- sonal income to prior levels. 2. TABOR revenue limits effec- tively prevent surplus revenues from being set aside or reserved for a rainy day. This occurs because TABOR requires that any revenues set aside for a reserve or rainy day fund be counted as revenues subject to TABOR's revenue limit in the year set aside. 3. TABOR revenue limits encour- age state government to shift its rev- enue problems to local governments. The state can (and has) shifted some of its fiscal problems to local gov- ernments by: • Imposing new or increased fees to be paid by local govenments (and businesses and individuals) to replace general fund revenues that previously paid for the activity or program; - Transferring (borrowing or permanently taking) revenues from special funds; such as energy impact. funds set aside for local govern- ments, to pay for state operations; • Reducing general fund appro- priations-for local needs, such as libraries, water, sewer and housing; and • Requiring local governments to perform services and activities man- dated by the state. State fiscal actions that have adversely affected local governments, citizens Since Referenda C and D address only state revenues, why should local officials care? Even though Colorado Municipalities Colorado is regarded as a fiscally decentralized state where local gov- ernments depend primarily on locally raised revenue, state actions have major positive and negative effects on local services. The follow- ing describes many recent state actions adversely affecting munici- palities and their residents: - Energy impact revenues These revenues, previously earmarked for grants and-loans to municipalities and other local gov- ernments, have increasingly been used to offset' operating expenses of the state Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). Additionally, during the 2005 legislative session, $3.8.1tiilIion of these funds were used by the state to partially pay the state of Kansas for a water rights judgment against Colorado. • Housing The state's very successful affordable loan and grant program was funded at between $3 million and $4 million just three years ago; the current funding level is $115,000.. • Libraries The state's community library grant program was funded at more than $2 million three years ago; the current funding level "is $600,000. • Police and fire pensions The state's contribution of $25.3 million annually to retire unfunded liabilities was suspended for FY 2003-2004 and 200442005. - State Patrol The State Patrol has reduced patrolling state highways within municipalities primarily due to a reduced workforce caused by rev- enue shortfalls. Telecommunications The "Beanpole" rural community telecommunications project has had state budget cuts in recent years of $5 million. - Transportation State general fund support for transportation through SB-1 bmu- August 2005 fern has been curtailed and is not expected to resume for several years. These expenditures were at a level of between $150 million and $200 mil- lion from 1998-2001. in addition, in recent years more than $12 million has been reduced in highway fund- ing at the state, county, and munici- pal levels due to using the Highway Users Tax. Fund to support programs" previously.supported by the state's general fund. During the 2005 ses- sion, an additional $9 million was approved to be ttansfeired"from the HUM to fund the Department of Revenue's Motor Vehicles Division expenses - formerly funded through state general funds. Moreover, "off- the-top" expenditures are growing much more rapidly than receipts of highway user taxes and fees, sub- stantially reducing funds available for highways, streets, and roads. • Water quality SB 03-276 removed $2 million in state general funds supporting the Water Quality Control Division and required that all direct and indirect costs (including 26.8 full-time employees) of the division be funded solely through fees charged to local governments and other providers. This had an overall impact during fiscal year 2004-05 of approximately $2.4 million although the fees were reduced for FY 2005-06. • Youth The Tony Grampsas Youth Grant Program was at a level of more than $6 million three years ago; initially it was eliminated - but subsequently _ . funded at $2.3, million For FY 2005- . 06, it will be funded at $3.5 million by using tobacco funds rather than state general funds. Future prospects for state-funded programs If TABOR revenue limits appli- cable to state government are not temporarily suspended through pas- sage of Referendum C, prospects for the future of many state-funded pro- grams are bleak. Actions taken thus far to balance the state budget will pale in comparison to future actions. If the state's fiscal bind is not relieved by voter approval of a "time-out," local officials and citi- zens should expect far deeper cuts. One thing is certain - state- funded programs are at a critical stage that cannot be solved without voter approval of Referendum C. In addition, Referendum D, the bonding measure, will accelerate funding for programs funded by Referendum C and together, with . "C," help move forward Coloradans' economy and quality of life. The opportunity'and challenge are before us Many municipalities have suc- . cessfidly addressed TABOR revenue limits as well as restrictions on mul- tiyear fiscal obligations through voter-approved measures similar to Referenda C and D. In fact, since 1992 about 88 percent of retain-and- spend measures and 68 percent of multiyear fiscal obligation measures have been appmyed by municipal voters. Statewide voters are being offered the same opportunity through Referenda C and D. Coloradans face a tremendous challenge and opportunity "to improve public services by'allowing the state to take a "time-out" from revenue limits for five years and by eliminating the current ratchet-down feature. Local officials should do theirpart to educate .their citizens . about the need to vote for Referenda C and D. ■ More information is available from the Vote Yes on C & D campaign, www voteyesonc-d.com, or by call- ing 303-861-02'17. 13 A#d6AM&__)-et_ C'. Campaign reform law: Use of public funds restricted By Geoff Wilson, CML General Counsel Ballots in statewide or local elections often include issues of profound impor- tance to Colorado municipalities. As community leaders, municipal officials can and should become actively involved in the public dis- cussion of these issues. However, the state Fair Campaign Practices Act places significant restrictions on the use of public funds for advo- cacy purposes or for dispensing information in connection with local or statewide ballot issues (Section 1-45-117, C.R.S.). The FCPA restrictions apply once a statewide petition has been submitted for title setting, once a title has been set on a local initia- tive or referendum, and upon final action of the governing body plac- ing a referred measure on the bal- lot. These guidelines are intended to provide municipal officials and employees with general guidance concerning what they may or may not do, consistent with the FCPA. However, the municipal attorney should be consulted before any action is taken that could be viewed as subject to the public- funds restrictions in the FCPA. Permissible activities It is permissible to do the follow- ing in campaigns in support of or in opposition to a proposed measure: 1. The local governing body may take a position of advocacy on the issue. The governing body may pass a resolution and take a public stand urging the electorate to vote for or against any matter. Staff background research that leads to passage of a resolution is also per- missible. Local governments may report the passage of or distribute such 16 resolutions "through established, customary means, other than paid advertising, by which information about other proceedings of [the governing body] is regularly pro- vided to the public" (such as via a local government newsletter or cable television broadcast). 2. The act provides that any public official who has policy-mak- ing responsibilities may spend up to $50 of public money on phone calls, letters or other activities "inci- dental to expressing his or her opinion on any such issue." This provision is intended to help public officials avoid technical violations of the act when they are otherwise endeavoring to avoid use of public funds in their advo- cacy activ- ity; it should not be viewed as affirma- tive author- ity to spend public funds on advocacy. 3. Elected officials may speak out on the issues presented on the ballot. There is no limitation in the FCPA on the right of public officials to address any matter before the electorate; the limitation is on expenditure of public funds. 4. Public employees and paid elected officials may work on the campaign and speak out on the issues on their own time. Any pub- lic employee who becomes involved in the campaign should document that the effort is done on his or her own time. If the public employee is on a recorded-hour system, make sure the record reflects that the public employee took time off from public duties to engage in campaign activities. 5. If the local government has a policy permitting public groups to use its facilities for community pur- poses, it may allow groups opposed to or supportive of the ballot proposition to use those facil- ities if the policy is applied in an evenhanded fashion. 6. Public employees may respond to unsolicited questions or requests for information about a ballot issue; however, the local gov- emment should carefully avoid pro- ducing information for distribution that is designed to influence the passage or defeat of the issue. 7. The local governing body may use public funds to develop and distribute a factual summary on any issue that will appear on a ballot in the jurisdiction. The sum- mary must include arguments for or against the proposal, but the summary itself may not contain a conclusion or opinion in favor of or against the proposal. Impermissible activities It is impermissible under the FCPA, except as indicated above, to do the following in campaigns in support of or in opposition to a pro- posed measure: 1. use or expend public funds or supplies; 2. allow employees or paid offi- cers to work on a campaign during their working hours or use any pub- lic facility or equipment for the pur- poses of a campaign; 3. provide transportation or advertising using public property or funds to influence, directly or indi- rectly, the passage or defeat of any issue; or 4. grant an employee or officer leave from his job or office with the local government, with pay, to work on a campaign. For more information, contact Geoff Wilson at 303-831-6411. ■ August 2004 - Colorado Municipalities a P Tax Increase : Referendum C : It's YOUR MONEY! 1m. ~t .ti w f y t a Page 1 of 2 Do you know Menu where your tax dollars Links are? Joint Budget N_T_ U_ Home Committee FY 2005-06 AA propriations Tax Publications $838,0199505.95 R Foundation Long Bill Opinion FY 2005 - 2006 CUT July 1st 2005 -June 31st 2006 Public "Hi Ho, it's off to Tax we go" Click here to listen to the Radio Ad "Hi Speaking Ho, it's off to Tax we go" News Letters Click here to to listen to the Radio Ad "The Sky is Falling" Americans for. Tax Reform savetabor.com Media Get the facts on Referendum C Club_for h Growt _ Right now, the state of Colorado is under fiscal assault from the spending lobby, those who think they know how to best spend your money! The Colorado state Independence legislature sent to this fall's ballot an enormous, overreaching tax increase, known of Secretary Institute as Referendum C, for voter approval. While the spending lobbying has been _ State crying "budget cuts," the state legislature passed the largest budget ($15 billion) in Colorado history. Included within this budget are increases in every line item including health care, roads, corrections and a whopping 25 percent increase for higher education. • MASSIVE TAX INCREASE The state keeps all of YOUR excess tax refunds for five years. Biggs • COST UNKNOWN The estimated cost is $3.1 billion or $3200 per family The Heritage of four. But because the state keeps all of YOUR excess tax funds, that Foundation number could go much higher. Quotes • FOREVER TAX INCREASE Government is the one thing that defies the basic law of gravity: that which Reason goes up must come down. Once state spending has ratcheted up, it will Foundation Press Release never go down because the highest level of spending will become the new baseline. • AMENDMENT 23 IS THE REAL PROBLEM Mandated, unfunded K-12 spending has placed a strangle hold on the http://www.taxincrease.org/ C\ 7/20/2005 Tax Increase : Referendum C : It's YOUR MONEY! Make a general fund, each year consuming a greater percentage. Donation • OVERCOMPENSATION Referendum C gives the state legislature more than 3 times the amount of money it claims the-state needs to "change the TABOR ratchet effect." What budget crisis? The state budget is at an all time high. It increased to $15.2 billion, up 7% just this year. Enough to afford across the board pay increases for all government employees. Click here for print version. Re-port NO REFUND FOR YOU! Government It's not the Taxpayer's Bill- of Rights Waste that will cause the budget shortfall. ~a"No Refund For You!" Get your "NO REFUND FOR YOU!" bumper sticker. E-mail julie@i2i.or with your name and mailing address. Quantity: One per _ household please. Page 2 of 2 Bell Policy Center Americans for Prosperity Freedom Works Proponents of Cand D Address: 13952 Denver West Parkway Suite 400 Golden, CO 804011 Phone: 303-279-6536 ethan(c~i2i.org ~ http://www.taxincrease.org/ 7/20/2005 Get Weekly Freedom Updates (enter email): Search Site: T- FreedomWorks May 19, -2005 Max Pappas Director of Policy F -1 Printer-friendl, E-mail this to i Most_e-mailed Other articles 1 Pickpocket Amendment (Colorado Ref C) Facts Referendum C is an attempt by politicians to keep an estimated $3.1 billion that would otherwise be refunded to the taxpayers. Support Freec Media Contacl' As the battle over Referendum C-- the Pickpocket Amendment-- heats up, it is ® RELATED ITE important to remember the most important fact surrounding the issue: FreedomWorks, Art Referendum C is an attempt by politicians to keep an- estimated $3.1 billion that ® Taxpayer Bill of Ric would otherwise be refunded to the taxpayers. That's $3.1 billion that the O It's Time to End thi. taxpayers have a right to under current law, but which the government would Excise Tax take if Ref C passes. a The Vermont Repot o Vermont Considers That's why we're calling it the Pickpocket Amendment. Programs In Public The state's politicians are hoping they can pick $3.1 billion from taxpayers' pockets. There will most likely be a barrage of confusing and misleading ads to distract the taxpayers as the hoist is attempted. Scrap the Taa However, when armed with the facts, voters will be less susceptible to the attack on their wallets th carefully planned. ; Facts: 1. Colorado has no budget shortfall this year. 2. It is estimated that Ref C, if victorious, will keep for the government $3.1 billion in money that is to be refunded to the taxpayers. 3. Although some claim that state spending has been cut by $1 billion in recent years, Colorado's St Treasurer clearly states: "total state spending never actually decreased in any year of the recession 4. The General Fund accounts for only 42 percent of state spending-cash funds and federal funds n the rest. 5. General Fund spending did drop from $5.59 billion in 2001-02 to $5.52 billion the next year, but funds and federal funds more than made up'the difference, preventing an actual decrease in spendii the next two years, general fund spending grew by about $300 million. http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2264 - 7/20/2005 Pickpocket Amendment (Colorado Ref C) Facts Page 2 of 3 6. During the recent years of slower economic growth between 2001 and 2005, Medicaid's general f appropriation grew 16 percent. 7. During the recent years of slower economic growth between 2001 and 2005.K-12 education's ger appropriation grew by 12, percent. This increase was largely driven by Amendment, 23 which manda- increased spending per pupil at the rate of'inflation plus,1'percent, regardless of the state of,the ecc its impact on other state programs: 8. Education and Medicaid spending grew considerably, eating up funds other departments could ha but 7 of the state's 22 departments saw their budgets decrease between'2001=02. 9. The future budget "shortfall" Ref C supporters lament is not a real shortfall. Colorado's budget is grow as much as 6% a year-or from $5,.9, billion in 2004705 to $7.8 billion in 2009-10. Those claim "shortfall" do so because it is predicted that,by 2009-10 there will only be enough tax dollars for a $ budget. They're complaining about only being able to increase government spending by $1.3 billion 5 years. 10. Ref C is asking taxpayers to allow the state's politicians to keep all the tax surplus refunds due t taxpayers for the next five years, no matter how much greater than $3.1 billion that surplus is. 11. Usually, whenever $3.1 billion in taxpayer money is ,taken by the government, it is called a "tax i 12. By supporting Ref. C, Governor Owens violates'the pledge he signed with the Colorado Union of where he pledged "to support the refund of tax surpluses to the citizens of Colorado." 13. The 2005-06 budget for Colorado's state government is the largest in state history, with,$15.2 I appropriations. Under this budget, spending is up across the board. 14. The 2005-06 budget increases general fund spending by 4 percent 15. This year's general fund's biggest items are: a. K-12 education, $2.7 billion, up 7.3 percent from last year. b. Medicaid, and health care, $1.38 billion, up 8.4 percent. c. Higher education, $598 million, up 1.7 percent. d. Corrections, $531 million, up 7.6 percent. e. Human services, $499 million, up 3.8 percent. 16. These "big five" departments consume more than 92 percent of the general fund. 17. Colorado's Senate is already passing bills to spend the extra money Ref C would bring in. Senat, for example, is a bill that recently, passed in the Senate calling for a new $15 million spending progr passes. Luckily, uproar over a supposedly broke government creating new.spending programs has Ii bill being pulled. Sources 1. http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_3669160,00.htrT. 2. http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_3669160,00.htn 3. http://www.treasurer.state.co.us/news/enotes/2005/1_biIlion_question_may_4.htm 4. http://www.treasurer.staie.co.us/news/enotes/2005/1_billion_question_may_4.htm ~ fy http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues template.php?issue_id=2264 7/20/2005 Pickpocket Amendment (Colorado Ref C) Facts • 5. http://www.treasurer.state.co.us/news/enotes/2005/1_biIIion_question_may_4.htm 6. http://www.treasurer.state.co.us/news/enotes/2005/1_biIIion_question_may_4.htm 7. http://www.treasurer.state.co.us/news/enotes/2005/1_billion_question_may_4.htm 8. 'http://www.treasurer.state.co.us/news/enotes/2005/1_biIIion_question_may_4.htm 9. http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/icsstaff/Ics/focus/2005/05ForecastO321.pdf Page 3 of 3 10. http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_3669160,00.ht 11. http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_3669160,O0.ht 12. http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_3669160,ob.ht 13. http://www.coloradosenate.com/resuIts.php3?news_id=777 14. http://www.coloradosenate.com/resuIts.php3?news_id=777 15. http://www.coloradosenate.com/resuIts.php3?news_id=777 16. http://www.coloradosenate.com/resuIts.php3?news_id=777 17. http://www.coloradosenate.com/audiofiles/532005.txt E-mail this article to a friend READER COMMENTS Be the first to post comments about this article Back to FreedomWorks Home Page FreedomWorks 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-5805 Phone: (202) 783-3870 Fax: (202) 942-7649 Toll Free: 1-888-564-6273 www.freedomworks.org © 1996-2005 FreedomWorks. Online Privacy Policy http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue__id=2264 7/20/2005