Amendment 60

Resolution in opposition to the ballot initiative ON LOCAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE

WHEREAS, the _______________ Board of Education is a public entity that provides educational services to the children in the _______________ School District; and

WHEREAS, a ballot initiative to amend Article X, Section 20 (“Taxpayer Bill of Rights” or “TABOR”) of the Colorado Constitution, which will appear on the general election ballot this November as Amendment 60, would cut in half all local property taxes used for the school district’s general fund and provides no credible means to replace these lost revenues; and

WHEREAS, the loss of 50% of the school district’s local property tax revenues would devastate the public educations provided to this community; and
WHEREAS, the decisions by voters of this school district to override TABOR revenue restrictions would be repealed by Amendment 60; and
WHEREAS, any future voter-approved property tax for the school district’s schools would expire within 10 years; and

WHEREAS, Amendment 60 would defeat and reverse the decisions of local communities on how to raise and allocate local resources, including public education, and consequently, eliminate local control of local budgets, including those of local boards of education; and

WHEREAS, Amendment 60 would reduce the local revenues available to local boards of education and severely impact the ability of school districts to effectively maintain an infrastructure to respond to the needs of educating Colorado’s children;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the ________________ Board of Education officially declares its opposition to Amendment 60.

Dated this ____ day of _____________________, 2010.

Amendment 61

Resolution in opposition to the ballot initiative ON public borrowing

WHEREAS, the _______________ Board of Education is a public entity that provides educational services to the children in the _______________ School District; and

WHEREAS, a ballot initiative to amend the Colorado Constitution, which will appear on the general election ballot this November as Amendment 61, would ban the use of any kind of debt by the State of Colorado and severely restrict the ability of local school districts to issue debt or to utilize appropriate and prudent business practices in managing the finances of the school district; and

WHEREAS, Amendment 61 would severely limit the ability of local communities to determine the appropriate use of local funds by this school board, including bonding and other appropriate and prudent debt obligations, for building and other capital needs; and

WHEREAS, Amendment 61 would disallow state funding programs that provide the means for some school districts to have sufficient cash flow to meet operating costs during the early parts of the school year (due to the timing of the collection of property tax revenues), and thus potentially cause school closures or reductions in education services; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 61 would prohibit or severely and unnecessarily constrain the ability of local school districts to use appropriate and well-established business practices in their normal day-to-day operations, such as refinancing bonded debt at a lower interest rate and using lease-purchase agreements to fund office equipment and furnishings; and

WHEREAS, Amendment 61 would eliminate prudent and cost-effective state programs that assist local school districts such as BEST (Building Excellent Schools Today) that permits many school districts to build new schools; and

WHEREAS, Amendment 61 would result in the elimination of the resources available for public education programs and cause further cuts in public education at a time when public education is already suffering from cuts in resources that diminish the educational services and opportunities available to Colorado’s children; and

WHEREAS, Amendment 61 could be economically devastating to the Colorado economy by eliminating jobs and deterring out-of-state companies from doing business in Colorado or with Colorado public entities, including school districts;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the ________________ Board of Education officially declares its opposition to Amendment 61.

Dated this ____ day of _____________________, 2010.

Proposition 101

Resolution in opposition to the ballot initiative on Motor vehicle, Income and Telecommunications Taxes and Fees

WHEREAS, the _______________ Board of Education is a public entity that provides educational services to the children in the _______________ School District; and

WHEREAS, a proposed ballot initiative to amend the Colorado Statutes, which will appear on the general election ballot this November as Proposition 101, requires the reduction of public resources and valuable public programs, including public education, by radically reducing certain specific ownership fees and taxes; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 101 would reduce the state budget by over one billion dollars, forcing drastic and unsustainable cuts to public education, as well as health care, and dozens of other critical public services; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 101 would cause school districts to lose specific ownership taxes, including losses of up to _______________ by this district; and
WHEREAS, current economic difficulties and the resulting budget cuts, including cuts to the State Education Fund, are already in violation of the Article IX, Section 17 of the Colorado Constitution, as well as the Colorado Constitution’s mandate that the State establish and maintain a “thorough and uniform system of public schools” throughout Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the budget cuts that would result from Proposition 101 would ensure that the mandates of the Colorado Constitution could never be met;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the _______________ Board of Education officially declares its opposition to Proposition 101 because it would cripple the ability of the state to meet its obligations to establish and sufficiently fund public education in the State of Colorado and devastate the ability of local boards of education throughout the state, including this Board, to adequately serve the educational needs of children in the community.
Dated this ____ day of _____________________, 2010.

Click here to get yours from Cafe Press!

Well, how did we get here?

The falling red line on this graph documents how Colorado’s per pupil funding compares to the national average from 1972-2007.  With conventional wisdom in and around the Capitol that K-12 funding is “fine” and has been protected – perhaps too protected – by Amendment 23, this graph tells the real story of Colorado’s 30 year history of disinvestment.  The downward trend started with the Gallagher Amendment in 1982 and continued to decline with the passage of TABOR in 1992.  Even with a slight increase following Amendment 23, Colorado continued dropping to new lows relative to the national average.  In 2007, Colorado was $1,397 below the national per pupil funding average.

In the 1980s, Colorado invested more per student than the national average, even during the energy bust.  In 1982, we passed the Gallagher Amendment (the vertical green line on the graph) – which started eroding the local property tax base by continually reducing the assessment rate (the percent of the value of a home that is taxed).   From 1982-1992, school districts were able to somewhat stabilize local revenues by floating mill rates up.

In 1992, TABOR was passed (the vertical orange line) and took away the ability of districts to float their mill rates without a vote of the people and limited the state’s ability to backfill the hole left by declining property tax rates (because of a 6% spending limit imposed on spending from the State General Fund).  The result: Colorado’s tangle of restrictive budget laws prevented the legislature from even keeping up with inflation in per pupil funding.

The good news is that in 2000, Colorado voters passed Amendment 23 to plug hemorrhaging P-12 budgets (the vertical purple line).  Estimates indicate that if Colorado did not pass Amendment 23, average spending per student would have dipped down an additional $500-1,000.  As the graph indicates, per pupil spending in 2000 was already nearly $700 per pupil below the national average.   At the time it passed, Amendment 23 was intended to be a floor and not a ceiling.

The bad news is that since 2000, Amendment 23 has become a ceiling and not the protective floor it was originally intended to be.  The other bad news is that the measure of inflation used in Amendment 23’s inflation + 1% for K-12 funding is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and is not weighted to reflect the kinds of things that school districts buy like health care, pensions, and energy.

As you track the red line where Colorado falls relative to the national average, you can see that at one point, Colorado increases relative to the national average.   During the post-9/11 economic downturn in 2003, Amendment 23 protected Colorado’s schools more than those in the rest of the country.  But when the economy recovered, other states took action to remedy temporary cuts made in tough times.  In essence, while other states said: “finally we can invest in our kids again”, Colorado took a different path and funded schools barely above the minimum required by Amendment 23.

Consequently, Colorado’s per pupil funding has fallen off the chart over the past several years — a phenomenon that will only get worse in 2011, unless we work together to prevent “the Cliff.” (In 2011, Amendment 23 and Referendum C sunset, and the federal stimulus dollars that are currently propping up education funding will dry up.)

What can you do right now?  Take the Great Futures pledge to invest in kids, because great futures start with a great education.  Let’s match our resources with smart, sustainable reforms to impact all Colorado students.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

The falling red line on this graph documents how Colorado’s per pupil funding compares to the national average from 1972-2007. With conventional wisdom in and around the Capitol that K-12 funding is “fine” and has been protected – perhaps too protected – by Amendment 23, this graph tells the real story of Colorado’s 30 year history of disinvest- ment. The downward trend started with the Gallagher Amendment in 1982 and continued to decline with the passage of TABOR in 1992. Even with a slight increase following Amendment 23, Colorado continued dropping to new lows relative to the national average. In 2007, Colorado was $1,397 below the national per pupil funding average.

ASK YOUR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND LEGISLATORS

Even with Amendment 23, Colorado has fallen further and further behind the National Average for per pupil funding ($1,397 below in 2007). With the new interpretation of Amendment 23, schools will likely experience cuts in January 2010 with worse cuts expected in the 2010-11 fiscal year.

1. How would cuts impact kids, the future of our community, and communities across the state? What is your plan to address potential cuts?
2. In 2011, the education funding cliff will really arrive for P-20 schools—the 5 year timeout in Ref. C sunsets, the extra 1% in Amendment 23 expires, and Federal Stimulus dollars will no longer be propping up school, college, and university budgets. With our shrinking investments, how can we continue to meet the individual needs of all Colorado kids and implement important reform efforts to improve our education system for the long term?
3. In your position as [School Board Member or Legislator], what are you going to do to avoid the Cliff?

UPDATE: See also the editorial in the Denver Post 10/11 - Downturn is the right time to invest by Liane Morrison and Lynn Huizing