National Association of Counties * Washington, D.C.      Vol. 32, No. 20 * November 6, 2000

---

Previous story | Table of Contents | Next story

Voters face ballot issues in 42 states

By Valarie Ziobro
special correspondent

---

Larry Kallenberger
Colorado Counties, Inc.

Things could get very tough for Oregon counties after Nov. 7.

If voters pass Ballot Measure 93, every fee increase — even library fines — would need to get voter approval before being implemented. Ballot Measure 93 is just one of 204 statewide ballot initiatives in 42 states that voters will be confronted with this Nov. 7. The following report highlights some of the more critical initiatives counties are facing.

Ballot Measure 93, the Taxpayer Protection Initiative, would require special voter approval of most new or increased taxes, fees and charges, as well as requiring approval, reapproval or refunds of taxes, fees and charges previously implemented or increased. It would require a “supermajority” of voters, pegged to the winning margin of Measure 93, to approve any increases.

The Association of Oregon Counties says it will be a nightmare to put every fee increase before the voters. At the very minimum, it would immediately force votes on more than 1,200 revenue-raising measures approved since 1998, or force refunds of those fees.

Colorado’s ‘Tax Cut 2000’
In Colorado, Amendment 21, known as Tax Cut 2000, calls for a $25 annual tax reduction in property, utility, vehicle sales, use and ownership, and state income taxes. The tax cuts would reduce by another $25 each year until the tax is eliminated. If approved, Amendment 21 would go into effect in 2001. Amendment 21 does not require the state to replace money that local governments would lose as a result of the proposal.

While Colorado Counties Inc. neither endorses nor opposes ballot initiatives, the state association did undertake a county-by-county study of the impact on local government property tax collections if Amendment 21 is passed.

The effect on Montrose County is typical of what the association found. Montrose County commissioners may be forced to take swift, drastic measures to cut services if Amendment 21 is approved, said Finance Director Karin Slater. “In 2002, the county would lose $1.7 million of revenues derived from property taxes alone,” she said. The county would lay off 77 employees, about 22 percent of its workforce, she added.

County Commission Chairman Dave Ubell said that Republicans, Democrats and Independents are working together in the county to oppose the measure because it would have devastating effects on funding for libraries, recreation facilities, fire protection and other vital services across the state. Groups representing these entities have come out against the measure as well.

Washington fee rollback
The most far-reaching ballot initiative for counties in Washington, Initiative Measure 722, would nullify certain 1999 tax and fee increases and rebate the increases to taxpayers. It would also limit property tax increases (except on new construction) to the lesser of 2 percent or the inflation rate annually and would exempt vehicles from property taxes.

“[Measure 722] is so convoluted that it’s really difficult to figure out how the numbers would work,” said Clark County Assessor Ben Gassaway. He leveled several criticisms of the measure. County property tax revenues are already limited by law to modest annual increases pegged to local inflation. The cap on assessments would shift the tax burden from owners of higher-priced homes whose properties may be increasing in value at a higher rate to the average homeowner.

Alaskans’ tax revolt
Alaska voters will face a property tax cap measure based largely on California’s Proposition 13. Ballot Measure 4 would cap property taxes at 1 percent of assessed value and cap increases in assessments at 2 percent a year.

The Alaska Municipal League opposes the measure, saying it “takes away local voter control” over revenues. In fact, voters in many municipalities have approved caps that are already above the 10-mill limit the measure would impose – so a rollback would override their wishes.

“People in one part of the state should not be allowed to set mill rates for people in other municipalities,” the league statement said. “Boroughs and cities with higher property tax rates, but little or no sales tax, might be forced to impose sales taxes, which must then be approved by voters,” said Scott Brandt-Erichsen, Ketchikan Gateway Borough attorney. He also pointed out that some boroughs provide all the services of a city, and could be hurt more by the cap than other boroughs that provide more limited services.

Other state tax measures
In Arkansas an initiative to abolish the property tax did not survive a court challenge, but another property tax initiative did. Constitutional Amendment 2 is a legislative proposal that would provide a $300 credit against local property tax and require counties to reassess property values. If approved, it would trigger an increase in the state’s sales tax to offset the cost of property tax rebates. Meanwhile, Amendment 4 would abolish state and local sales and use taxes on used goods and prohibit any increase without voter approval.

Other tax initiatives
South Dakota and Montana voters will decide on whether to eliminate their states’ estate tax. And Montanans will vote on repeal of the state’s sales tax on new cars and a change in how vehicles are taxed. The initiative would also change distribution of those motor vehicle revenues, allotting more to highways and less to local governments including counties and school districts.

Growth management initiatives on the ballot in three states
Land use management and growth limits continue to be hot topics, as ballot initiatives reveal in Colorado, Arizona and Oregon.

Colorado’s Amendment 24 would require voter approval of so-called “growth area maps” that identify areas for future development in counties, cities and towns with populations greater than 10,000.

Of the 63 member counties in Colorado Counties Inc. (CCI), 45 registered opposition to Amendment 24. The members see Amendment 24 it as a state-mandated device “to limit development outright,” said Chris Castillian, CCI legislative director, who added that if passed, the measure would be the “toughest in the country” on growth limits.

Counties opposing the measure cited the one-size-fits-all approach to growth management, reduced local control and increased costs of holding special elections and placing detailed requirements in the constitution rather than in statute.

Many counties favor growth management, but in legislation rather than constitutional change. “Although the membership voted overwhelmingly to oppose the amendment, we understand growth is a major issue for the citizens of Colorado,” said Larry Kallenberger, CCI executive director. “We will be pushing for strong growth management legislation in the 2001 session.”

Arizona growth limitations measure
In Arizona, Prop. 202 would limit urban sprawl by requiring counties and municipalities to submit to voters’ “growth management plans” with boundaries to allow for 10-year population growth. It would also limit rezoning and extension of water, sewer and garbage services outside these boundaries unless approved by the government and voters.

The measure would also require developers to pay for schools to serve new subdivisions and protect air and water quality. Plans could not be changed without voter approval. The initiative would also limit wildcat subdivisions, provide for public access to state conservation lands, and amend existing laws to conform to the initiative.

The County Supervisors Association of Arizona found that most of its members did not support the measure, not a surprise in a wilderness state with only a few high growth areas.

“A ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy will not work in Arizona,” said Sally Bender, assistant executive director, because of vast differences in growth patterns and economic development. “The policy is designed for high-growth areas, but most of our supervisors believe it would be disastrous for economic development; for example, they’re concerned about building new housing for workers who come in for new high-tech business.”

In addition to increased population density issues inside the growth boundary, counties are concerned that farmers and ranchers will be restricted from using their private property.

Coconino County, home of rapidly growing Flagstaff, and Pima County, with Tucson and a big piece of the Sonoran Desert, did support the measure.

Oregon measure would change rulemaking
Oregon, which passed the first comprehensive growth management policy in the country in the early 1970s, has had continued powerful opposition to that policy by lumber industry, developers, and real estate interests.

Oregon’s Ballot Measure 2 is an administrative rules change that would allow citizens to petition for review of regulations. Smart growth advocates and environmentalists see this measure as a potential tool for opponents to smart growth policies.

Bob Cantine, executive director of the Association of Oregon Counties said the association has come out against Measure 2, but not for fear that opponents to growth management would use it to their own ends.

Currently land use rulemakings by the state land use planning agency have the effect of law, and the legislature has the option of reviewing and overriding those rules.

Measure 2 would mandate legislative review of any rulemaking upon petition by 10,000 qualified voters. Cantine said the association is concerned that this would complicate the rulemaking process and drag it out over time.

Takings initiative
The counties association is more concerned about Measure 7, which proposes to amend the Oregon Constitution to require state and local governments to pay private property owners when a regulation restricts the use of property or reduces its value.

This takings measure, said Cantine, “would require local government to implement a state law at significant cost to the local government” by opening a whole new area for property owners to make claims and having to assign a monetary value to restriction of use.

Cantine is also concerned that because the measure is retroactive, claims could be made on past actions, forcing local governments to go back over the effects of old regulations, an overly burdensome and, in some cases, impossible task, he said.