Taxpayer's Bill of Rights
(TABOR)
Ballot Language
County Ballot Questions to Retain Excess Revenue
El Paso County (2017, passed)
WITHOUT IMPOSING NEW TAXES OR RAISING TAX RATES, SHALL EL PASO COUNTY BE PERMITTED TO RETAIN AND SPEND $14,548,000 IN EXCESS 2016 REVENUE AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE PURSUANT TO TABOR (ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION) TO INVEST ONLY IN THE FOLLOWING INFRASTRUCTURE:
- THE I-25 CORRIDOR GAP LOCAL SHARE AND OTHER ROADWAY SAFETY AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, UP TO $12 MILLION;
- DISASTER RECOVERY PROJECTS; AND
- PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE PROJECTS,
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SUCH EXCESS REVENUE WOULD OTHERWISE BE REFUNDED ONLY TO TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY OWNERS AS A ONE-TIME TAX CREDIT (EXAMPLE: APPROXIMATELY $40 FOR A TYPICAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOME VALUED AT $250,000), AND TO RETAIN AND SPEND IN THE 2017 FISCAL YEAR AND THEREAFTER AN AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT EXCEEDS CURRENT TABOR LIMITATIONS BUT IS NO GREATER THAN THE COUNTY REVENUE CAP, WHICH CONTINUES TO LIMIT FUTURE REVENUE GROWTH AS PROVIDED IN RESOLUTION NO.17-244?
City and County of Denver (2016, passed)
MAY THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER RETAIN AND SPEND ALL 2015 REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE THREE ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT (.04%) SALES AND USE TAX RATE INCREASE IN SUPPORT OF THE DENVER PRESCHOOL PROGRAM AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE VOTERS ON NOVEMBER 4, 2014, AND CONTINUE TO IMPOSE AND COLLECT THE TAX TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE ORIGINAL VOTER APPROVAL THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2026?
El Paso County (2014, passed)
SHALL THE COUNTY OF EL PASO, COLORADO BE PERMITTED TO RETAIN AND EXPEND $2,044,758 IN EXCESS REVENUE RESTRICTED ONLY TO FUND IMPROVEMENTS TO TRAILS, NATURE CENTERS, REGIONAL PARKS SUCH AS BEAR CREEK, BLACK FOREST, FALCON, FOUNTAIN CREEK, FOX RUN, HOMESTEAD RANCH AND THE PAINT MINES, AND THE COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS, ACQUISITION OF AND IMPROVEMENTS TO OPEN SPACE AREAS, AND RESTORATION OF PARKS, FACILITIES AND TRAILS DAMAGED BY FIRES AND FLOODS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL CITIZENS IN THE CITIES, TOWNS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF EL PASO COUNTY, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SUCH EXCESS REVENUE WOULD OTHERWISE BE REFUNDED ONLY TO OWNERS OF TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY AS A ONE-TIME $8.41 CREDIT ON PROPERTY TAX STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE 2013 FISCAL YEAR SPENDING LIMITATION REQUIRED BY ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
Municipal Ballot Questions to Retain Excess Revenue
City of Colorado Springs (2021, passed)
WITHOUT IMPOSING ANY NEW TAX OR INCREASING THE RATE OF ANY EXISTING TAX, SHALL THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS BE PERMITTED TO RETAIN AND SPEND UP TO $20,000,000 TO CREATE A CITY-WIDE AND REGIONAL WILDFIRE MITIGATION AND PREVENTION PROGRAM TO BE MANAGED BY THE COLORADO SPRINGS FIRE DEPARTMENT, THIS AMOUNT BEING THE ESTIMATED 2021 REVENUES ABOVE THE 2021 FISCAL YEAR REVENUE/SPENDING LIMITATIONS, AND ANY FUTURE INTEREST RECEIVED THEREON, OF WHICH NO MORE THAN 5% OF THE BALANCE OF THE FUND WILL BE SPENT ANNUALLY, AND FOR CITY FISCAL YEAR 2022 AND THEREAFTER, THE AMOUNT ALLOWED BY CITY REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITATIONS SHALL BE THE TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES RECEIVED IN 2021, ADJUSTED IN EACH FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER FOR INFLATION AND CITY GROWTH AS PROVIDED BY CHARTER, AS VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGES AND EXCEPTIONS TO ANY CONSTITUTTIONAL, STATUTORY AND CHARTER REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITATIONS THAT MAY OTHERWISE APPLY?
City of Littleton (2017, passed)
WITHOUT CREATING ANY NEW TAX OR INCREASING ANY CURRENT TAXES, SHALL THE CITY OF LITTLETON, COLORADO BE AUTHORIZED TO RETAIN AND SPEND ALL TAXES, GRANTS AND OTHER REVENUES RECEIVED IN 2016 IN EXCESS OF LIMITATIONS ESTABLISHED BY ARTICLE X, SECTION 20, OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION, USING SUCH EXCESS EXISTING REVENUES ONLY FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS TO INCLUDE SOME OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING USES AND ALLOCATIONS DEPENDING ON THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS, WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20, OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION REMAINING IN EFFECT, INCLUDING VOTER APPROVAL OF ANY NEW TAX, TAX RATE INCREASE OR ADDITIONAL DEBT?
PROJECTS:
- PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE – RESIDENTIAL STREETS
- BOWLES AVENUE AND FEDERAL BOULEVARD INTERSECTION SAFETY UPGRADES
TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE USING EXCESS EXISTING REVENUES IS $1,937,904.
Town of Castle Rock (2016, passed)
SHALL THE TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK BE PERMITTED TO RETAIN AND EXPEND UP TO $714,580 OF EXCESS 2015 REVENUE FOR POLICE, FIRE, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, AND TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TABOR)?
TABOR Refund Mechanisms
Most Colorado counties have de-Bruced (that is, received voter approval to retain and spend excess revenues above the TABOR limits) and do not, therefore, need to issue TABOR refunds. When counties do receive excess revenue above the spending limit, counties may ask voters for approval to retain that revenue, sometimes for specific purposes (see ballot language above). Despite the resulting rarity of county-level TABOR refunds, some counties do, on occasion, find themselves needing to issue refunds.
Below, we have compiled resources for counties to reference when they find themselves in such a position, gleaning insight from the mechanisms municipalities have used to issue TABOR refunds. These resources may be referenced to borrow past refund mechanisms, ballot language, and communication around TABOR refunds, or simply as a source of inspiration for other refund mechanisms.
Do you know of other creative approaches? If so, send them to cci@ccionline.org. We are always eager to explore other TABOR refund mechanisms!
NOTE: The following should not be considered legal advice or counsel. Counties are encouraged to visit with their county attorneys on all TABOR-related items.
UTILITY BILL REFUNDS
In Short
Just as counties most frequently issue TABOR refunds through property tax credits, municipalities most commonly issue TABOR refunds through credits on residents’ utility bills.
Used by: City of Colorado Springs, City of Delta, City of Fountain
Relevance for Counties
Utility bill refunds work particularly well for municipalities, as utilities may be municipally owned. Counties may take inspiration from this and consider whether there are any similar entities that service most of the local population; if they come up with such a service, they may use utility bill refund language and documentation as a starting place for issuing refunds through that service.
Documentation
REC CENTER PUNCH PASSES
In Short
A unique refund mechanism is the issuing of rec center punch passes to residents. The City of Delta has used this mechanism twice – once in 2020, once in 2022 – with great success and positive feedback. On pre-announced dates, residents bring an ID and proof of residence to the rec center and can pick up their punch passes.
For the municipality, this was administratively straightforward: rec center staff used a city map to determine whether a utility bill’s address qualified for the punch pass, then entered ID data (name, address) into one shared spreadsheet. They used the addresses in the spreadsheet to avoid issuing duplicate punch passes to the same household.
Used by: City of Delta
Relevance for Counties
Because of the scale difference between counties and cities like the city of Delta, this could be difficult for counties to implement. Even so, it could be something to explore by considering, for example, issuing passes to a county fair. Counties would need to consider how to administer passes (as a spreadsheet is not feasible) and how residents qualify (ex. registered address on ID or on utility bill must be within the county). If these questions can be resolved, counties may be able to use a similar low-cost refund mechanism that enhances community engagement.
Documentation
Delta Sample Communication
(Coming Soon!)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
In Short
A refund strategy that has been discussed at the municipal level is use of excess revenue to purchase an extra asset for the community as a way of “giving it back.” Indeed, this is what the city of Delta has done by providing shade structures in parks and cleaning up murals.
Because this has been relatively uncommon and the refund does not go directly back to residents, the restrictions around this are less clear. However, there seem to be two key criteria: 1) the capital improvement or extra asset must benefit the general community (not just one segment of the community), and 2) the improvement would not otherwise have been accomplished or budgeted for.
Used by: City of Delta
Relevance for Counties
Counties might explore capital improvements as a refund mechanism. However, it may be difficult to find improvements that can be justified as improving the county community as a whole and not simply a segment, since the sheer size of counties is much greater than that of a city. Additionally, when counties have used excess revenue for improvements like improving trails and regional parks or other shared assets, counties tend to get voter approval for that spending (see ballot language section above).
Documentation
