Home
News
ENLARGE
ASPEN — Second-home owners in Pitkin County would be able to vote on property tax increases if voters approve the controversial Amendment 60 in November.
Currently, people who own second homes in Colorado can't vote on property tax increases that are imposed on the district their home is in unless they consider it their primary residence.
Aspen City Manager Steve Barwick said the intent of the measure is strictly to allow second-home owners a say in tax increases, although there has been chatter that, depending on the way the ballot language is interpreted by courts and attorneys, it could restrict renters from voting on property tax increases.
A study conducted by the Sopris Foundation in 2006 showed that 61 percent of the city's houses were second homes.
Second-home owners in Pitkin County have long been concerned that they are being taxed without representation because they are forced to pay for mill levies and tax increases that are approved by full-time residents.
At the same time, many second-home owners do not reap a large amount of public services from entities such as the Aspen School District and others which receive that tax revenue.
But the city has said that allowing part-time residents to vote would be a bane on those public services. With a new voting population that likely would oppose tax increases, it could be harder to pass fees for special programs.
Amendment 60, which would also impose several stringent limits on the government's ability to implement new special district fees and taxes, echoes a 1992 Constitutional amendment that placed broad tax caps on state governments and required that voters approve all proposed tax increases.
One of those requirements, opponents say, would slash school district mill levies in half, stripping money from K-12 education, and placing the responsibility of replacing the revenues with the state. Colorado is facing a lawsuit because it reduced state funding for higher education in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
The Colorado Legislative Council says in a report that, if the measure passes along with two other broad tax cuts, K-12 education funding would take up to 99 percent of the state budget next year, leaving little for other public programs.
Amendment 60 would also allow voters to petition to lower property taxes and require that any tax increase proposal be separate from a debt issue on the ballot.
That essentially means that, if the government wanted to implement a new public project that requires it taking on debt, voters could pass the project without approving a taxpayer-funded payment plan.
The three tax-limiting measures are being pushed by a group of conservative Colorado community members who blame wasteful government programs for the nation's widespread economic woes.
They say the rules would enforce existing Colorado policy, while putting much of the state's legislative authority in the hands of voters.
ahedge@aspentimes.com
Currently, people who own second homes in Colorado can't vote on property tax increases that are imposed on the district their home is in unless they consider it their primary residence.
Aspen City Manager Steve Barwick said the intent of the measure is strictly to allow second-home owners a say in tax increases, although there has been chatter that, depending on the way the ballot language is interpreted by courts and attorneys, it could restrict renters from voting on property tax increases.
A study conducted by the Sopris Foundation in 2006 showed that 61 percent of the city's houses were second homes.
Second-home owners in Pitkin County have long been concerned that they are being taxed without representation because they are forced to pay for mill levies and tax increases that are approved by full-time residents.
At the same time, many second-home owners do not reap a large amount of public services from entities such as the Aspen School District and others which receive that tax revenue.
But the city has said that allowing part-time residents to vote would be a bane on those public services. With a new voting population that likely would oppose tax increases, it could be harder to pass fees for special programs.
Amendment 60, which would also impose several stringent limits on the government's ability to implement new special district fees and taxes, echoes a 1992 Constitutional amendment that placed broad tax caps on state governments and required that voters approve all proposed tax increases.
One of those requirements, opponents say, would slash school district mill levies in half, stripping money from K-12 education, and placing the responsibility of replacing the revenues with the state. Colorado is facing a lawsuit because it reduced state funding for higher education in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
The Colorado Legislative Council says in a report that, if the measure passes along with two other broad tax cuts, K-12 education funding would take up to 99 percent of the state budget next year, leaving little for other public programs.
Amendment 60 would also allow voters to petition to lower property taxes and require that any tax increase proposal be separate from a debt issue on the ballot.
That essentially means that, if the government wanted to implement a new public project that requires it taking on debt, voters could pass the project without approving a taxpayer-funded payment plan.
The three tax-limiting measures are being pushed by a group of conservative Colorado community members who blame wasteful government programs for the nation's widespread economic woes.
They say the rules would enforce existing Colorado policy, while putting much of the state's legislative authority in the hands of voters.
ahedge@aspentimes.com
