Jeffco voters against de-Brucing as 1A is voted down

Posted

As of 10 p.m. on Election Day, 55.5% of votes counted are against passing ballot measure Jeffco 1A.

By the 10 p.m. update, about 83% of the ballots that the county clerk and recorder says were cast in this election were counted. 

Jeffco 1A is a question concerning the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), and asks if the county government should be allowed to keep excess revenue from TABOR.

TABOR limits the amount of revenue that a governmental body can retain and spend in a particular year. Among others, these revenues include property taxes from residences and businesses. Revenue collected beyond the TABOR cap must be refunded to Colorado taxpayers.

“We’re relieved the tax payers and voters saw this was an unreasonable and unjustified tax increase,” said Natalie Menten, volunteer coordinator for the grassroots organization, No Jeffco Tax Hike. “It shows there is strong support for the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (and) it shows that the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights does protect citizens.”

Earlier this year, the county identified that it was facing a financial challenge for the year 2020, attributing it to the need to keep up with an increasing demand for services because of population growth.

The county had presented 1A as a possible solution to the county's financial challenges.



About $16.1 million is the amount the county identified that it lacked for balanced 2020 budget and to maintain an appropriate reserve fund next year. To achieve that amount, the county proposed a seven percent budget reduction in 2020 for all county offices, departments and divisions whose budget is impacted by the general fund.

The general fund is the county's principle operating fund that is financed primarily by property taxes. There are 15 departments funded by the general fund.

De-Brucing is the informal term often associated with attempts to bypass certain TABOR restrictions. The county funds that have already been de-Bruced are the Open Space fund, Developmentally Disabled fund, Library fund and Conservation Trust.

Comments

Our Papers

Ad blocker detected

We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.

The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.