Home
News
ASPEN — If Gov. Bill Ritter gets his way, local property owners may soon have to pay more in taxes to keep the Aspen schools operating.
Ritter, a Democrat who won election in part on a promise to reform education funding in Colorado, has proposed freezing school district mill levies to curb rising state subsidies to wealthy school districts.
According to Aspen School District finance officer Bill Anuszewski, the proposed amendment to Senate Bill 199 would freeze Colorado property tax rates at their current levels.
As a result, the state's payments to the Aspen School District would be slashed by about $68 per $1 million in assessed value of residential property. This would equal a loss of as much $1.9 million for the Aspen district, as the assessed value of properties within the Aspen School District is expected to rise by as much as 23 percent next year.
The reason lies partly in the 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, which limits increases in revenues raised by government through property taxes year by year. In order to balance the increased assessments and revenues, the district would have to lower its mill levy by 18 percent, Anuszewski said.
According to the April 9 edition of The Denver Post, school-related taxes on an average home in Pitkin County were only slightly higher in 2006 ($897 on a home worth $2.3 million) than they were in 1993 ($895 on a home worth $819,736). The district has for years relied heavily on the nonprofit Aspen Education Foundation to raise additional funds for school-related needs.
By comparison, according to The Denver Post article, the average cost of a home in Denver in 1993 was $85,449, which generated a tax bill of $445.57. By 2006, the average home value had risen to $265,309, with a tax bill of $539.40.
As for the state's share of the costs of education in the two areas, in Aspen it rose from zero in 1993 to $3.8 million last year, or 30 percent of the total annual program budget, the Post article stated. In Denver, it rose from $84.2 million in 1993, or 33 percent of the total, to $224.6 million in 2006, equaling 49 percent of the program budget total.
In poorer school districts, although taxpayers pay a higher percentage of their property values to support their local schools, the total amount is low, so the state still must pay a higher percentage of the district's education funding. An example used in the story is the Sanford School District in Conejos County, where home values are low and tax bills have increased at steeper rates than either Aspen's or Denver's, but the state is still paying more than 90 percent of the district's total program budget.
The complexity of school funding issues is compounded by three different constitutional amendments, which have had contrasting effects on school finances. The 1982 Gallagher Amendment limits residential property taxes at the expense of commercial property taxes; TABOR put a stranglehold on revenue growth for governments at all levels; and Amendment 23, passed in 2000, directs the state to increase school funding every year by a factor equal to inflation plus 1 percent as a way to guarantee that schools get adequate support.
Ritter's proposal to freeze mill levies at their current levels is touted as a way to get out of that budgetary squeeze play. If local districts do not lower their mill levies as property values rise, they must collect more money from local taxpayers to relieve the state of some of its school-funding burden.
According to Anuszewski, Ritter's proposal would result in the state saving some $65 million in one year. He said that money could be used for other education-related needs, such as expanding kindergarten to a full day throughout the state.
"The bottom line is, we can't really do anything about this, right?" asked school board member Elizabeth Parker, directing her remark to Anuszewski, who suggested the board lobby Aspen's elected state representatives as soon as possible.
But the board did not discuss the proposal or arrive at any position from which to lobby.
According to a spokesperson at the Denver office of Colorado Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, the proposed amendment to SB199 was discussed on the Senate floor but was never formally included in the bill. She said the Senate balked at including the governor's amendment because of concerns about its constitutionality, despite legal opinions reportedly obtained by the governor's office that say the measure is constitutional.
Devan Dreyer, press liaison for the governor's office, said the measure may come up for discussion on the Senate floor later this week, if the Legislature finishes its work on the Long Bill, which lays out the proposed state budget for the next fiscal year.
Neither Schwartz nor Aspen's other state legislator, Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, could be reached for comment Monday.
John Colson's e-mail address is jcolson@aspentimes.com
Ritter, a Democrat who won election in part on a promise to reform education funding in Colorado, has proposed freezing school district mill levies to curb rising state subsidies to wealthy school districts.
According to Aspen School District finance officer Bill Anuszewski, the proposed amendment to Senate Bill 199 would freeze Colorado property tax rates at their current levels.
As a result, the state's payments to the Aspen School District would be slashed by about $68 per $1 million in assessed value of residential property. This would equal a loss of as much $1.9 million for the Aspen district, as the assessed value of properties within the Aspen School District is expected to rise by as much as 23 percent next year.
The reason lies partly in the 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, which limits increases in revenues raised by government through property taxes year by year. In order to balance the increased assessments and revenues, the district would have to lower its mill levy by 18 percent, Anuszewski said.
According to the April 9 edition of The Denver Post, school-related taxes on an average home in Pitkin County were only slightly higher in 2006 ($897 on a home worth $2.3 million) than they were in 1993 ($895 on a home worth $819,736). The district has for years relied heavily on the nonprofit Aspen Education Foundation to raise additional funds for school-related needs.
By comparison, according to The Denver Post article, the average cost of a home in Denver in 1993 was $85,449, which generated a tax bill of $445.57. By 2006, the average home value had risen to $265,309, with a tax bill of $539.40.
As for the state's share of the costs of education in the two areas, in Aspen it rose from zero in 1993 to $3.8 million last year, or 30 percent of the total annual program budget, the Post article stated. In Denver, it rose from $84.2 million in 1993, or 33 percent of the total, to $224.6 million in 2006, equaling 49 percent of the program budget total.
In poorer school districts, although taxpayers pay a higher percentage of their property values to support their local schools, the total amount is low, so the state still must pay a higher percentage of the district's education funding. An example used in the story is the Sanford School District in Conejos County, where home values are low and tax bills have increased at steeper rates than either Aspen's or Denver's, but the state is still paying more than 90 percent of the district's total program budget.
The complexity of school funding issues is compounded by three different constitutional amendments, which have had contrasting effects on school finances. The 1982 Gallagher Amendment limits residential property taxes at the expense of commercial property taxes; TABOR put a stranglehold on revenue growth for governments at all levels; and Amendment 23, passed in 2000, directs the state to increase school funding every year by a factor equal to inflation plus 1 percent as a way to guarantee that schools get adequate support.
Ritter's proposal to freeze mill levies at their current levels is touted as a way to get out of that budgetary squeeze play. If local districts do not lower their mill levies as property values rise, they must collect more money from local taxpayers to relieve the state of some of its school-funding burden.
According to Anuszewski, Ritter's proposal would result in the state saving some $65 million in one year. He said that money could be used for other education-related needs, such as expanding kindergarten to a full day throughout the state.
"The bottom line is, we can't really do anything about this, right?" asked school board member Elizabeth Parker, directing her remark to Anuszewski, who suggested the board lobby Aspen's elected state representatives as soon as possible.
But the board did not discuss the proposal or arrive at any position from which to lobby.
According to a spokesperson at the Denver office of Colorado Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, the proposed amendment to SB199 was discussed on the Senate floor but was never formally included in the bill. She said the Senate balked at including the governor's amendment because of concerns about its constitutionality, despite legal opinions reportedly obtained by the governor's office that say the measure is constitutional.
Devan Dreyer, press liaison for the governor's office, said the measure may come up for discussion on the Senate floor later this week, if the Legislature finishes its work on the Long Bill, which lays out the proposed state budget for the next fiscal year.
Neither Schwartz nor Aspen's other state legislator, Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, could be reached for comment Monday.
John Colson's e-mail address is jcolson@aspentimes.com
