Councilman Hugh McKean cleverly out maneuvered colleague Carol Johnson last night by adding a sunset clause to the city’s TABOR override ballot measure while leading a shaky 5-4 majority.
see our story
Buoyed by her success helping to initiate the Hotel Tax in Loveland, Johnson called for a “permanent de-Brucing” of Loveland back in early April when the periodic TABOR override was being discussed for the ballot. Loveland voters have approved a temporary override of TABOR spending limits for the city in the past but never a permanent override. Supporters of the measure were concerned a permanent override of TABOR being on the ballot would put passage of the measure in jeopardy this November.
The ballot language as approved is misleading in that Loveland taxpayers are not being informed a yes vote will preclude them from receiving back excess tax revenue in the future as mandated by TABOR. While the financial impact on the city is relevant, so is the financial impact on the taxpayers who are not aware this will likely increase in aggregate the total taxes they pay to the city.
McKean’s coalition of support for the sunset clause came from an unlikely alliance of Tea Party activists who fully support TABOR and those from Loveland’s Chamber of Commerce and finance advisory committee who are anxious to see the TABOR override extended. The latter group supported the sunset clause out of concern the TABOR override wouldn’t pass muster with voters in November if the change is permanent.
We were disappointed that Mayor Gutierrez both on August 2, and again on August 16, used specious arguments to support his position favoring a “permanent de-Brucing” of Loveland. On August 2, he argued every time voters are asked to renew the TABOR spending limits override it costs taxpayers $30,000 for the election. This is false. Only a special election would cost such an amount. Loveland combines the TABOR override ballot question with regularly scheduled elections coordinated with the county. The cost of an extra item on the city’s portion of the ballot is negligible.
Last night Mayor Gutierrez challenged Councilwoman Donna Rice when she stated indeed the city could refund excess tax collections as contemplated in TABOR if the ballot measure fails. Both Gutierrez and Councilwoman Joan Shaffer tried to use the flawed argument that refunding money to taxpayers is hardly feasible if not impossible given the language in TABOR.
Hiding behind a manufactured, “it isn’t feasible” argument to support eliminating TABOR mandated taxpayer refunds was an attempt to obfuscate the real reasons they oppose TABOR. Those who support TABOR want the size of local government to stop growing by limiting increases in spending while those who opposed it (like Gutierrez, Shaffer and Johnson) support growing the size and influence of local governments.
We believe sincere city officials can easily articulate valid reasons why some parts of TABOR should be suspended temporarily. However, we only credit Shaffer with admitting she is philosophically opposed to TABOR while Gutierrez attempted an insincere, ‘my hands are tied’ approach to avoid disclosing his real political viewpoints during the council debate.
Regardless of the final outcome of the vote, we saw our city council was in rare form last night. Both sides of the issue articulated their viewpoints, the public input to the discussion was heard and the outcome of the discussion hardly predictable. This is how the process is supposed to work.
