June 21, 2011 08:54 PM UTC

TABOR--It's Great, Except When It's Not

• 3 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

Two stories out of Grand Junction–first, KJCT-TV:

Mesa County’s Commissioners are publicly opposing a lawsuit that threatens the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, of TABOR…

The plaintiffs in Kerr vs The State of Colorado say governments must be able to raise money in order to function. They say TABOR keeps governments from properly serving citizens and denies them of a representative democracy, as required by the Colorado and U.S. Constitution.

But Mesa County’s Commissioners say the lawsuit’s claims are baseless…

Tell that to the city of Grand Junction, writes the Sentinel’s Amy Hamilton:

The city is sending millions of dollars of sales and use tax revenue that has been collected over limits set by TABOR – the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights –  to pay off the parkway debt. But when the parkway debt is paid off, those excess tax dollars must be refunded to taxpayers. By 2018, those dollars could reach an estimated $8.7 million, city officials said.

In an attempt to continue using the money for future capital projects and avoid a refund situation, Grand Junction City Council members hope to present another TABOR override question during the April 2013 municipal election. City Council members agreed during a recent retreat that the ballot question would identify a specific project or projects that the money would fund.

“We have to be very careful about the ballot language,” Councilman Bennett Boeschenstein said during the early-June retreat. “It has to say with no tax increases while utilizing existing revenues.”

…If the city enters into a refund situation, the bulk of the dollars would go back to commercial businesses in Grand Junction, City Manager Laurie Kadrich said. But figuring out the best way to reimburse everyone could create a nightmarish scenario. City officials half-jokingly said it may be easiest to drop cash from an airplane over Mesa Mall during one of the year’s busiest shopping days. [Pols emphasis]

That sounds much more “functional,” doesn’t it?