The Taxpayer Defense Center continues to represent local taxpayers in their fight against an unconstitutional doubling of property tax in Colorado by filing a Reply Brief in the appeal in Aranci v. Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District.
In our Reply Brief, we respond to the government’s claim that a state property tax cap was actually a “range” of tax rates, and increases up to that cap can happen without public votes. This theory depends on the water district at issue in the case having no discretionary power over tax rates, which is simply not the case. We note that Colorado law contains a range of options for funding water districts beyond mill levies, and these options mean that the water districts are not mere functionaries trying to apply a statute–they have discretionary, quasi-legislative authority. That means they have to ask the voters if they want to increase property taxes as required under Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).
We also respond to the government’s claim that requiring a public vote on this property tax increase will starve it for money. This is untrue: both TABOR and the Water Conservancy Act provide for multiple funding mechanisms. Of course, we are only challenging the Water District’s recent tax increase, not the prior 0.5 mill levy rate that persisted for decades. That the Water District finds asking for voter approval inconvenient is not a reason to not apply TABOR.
The Water District also argues that a 1996 ballot measure waived all limits on them. We refute this theory, which the trial judge rejected, with a detailed analysis of the ballot measure language, which actually said the opposite: “ .”
If the government wins, and a tax increase can occur without the constitutionally-required public vote merely because the district has “varying budgetary needs,” then governments can sidestep TABOR’s ratification mandate at any time. If the Water District wishes to double property taxes, then the voters have a constitutional right to vote on it. Nothing the Water District argued compels any other decision.
We also requested oral argument before the Colorado Court of Appeals. Watch this space for more case developments.