Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ballot Estimates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses bill to use high-end revenue estimates in ballot titles to reduce repeat voter ask
Summary
A Joint Budget Committee staff draft, LLS 0638, would require the high end of the revenue range be used in ballot titles and certain blue book figures for voter-approved tax measures, with the stated goal of reducing instances where actual revenue exceeds an estimate and triggers a second voter approval or refunds.
A committee of the Joint Budget Committee discussed LLS 0638, a staff draft that would change how revenue estimates appear in ballot titles and in the blue book for voter-approved tax measures.
The bill would direct authors of ballot titles and certain blue book figures to use the high end of the range for an estimate rather than the midpoint. Proponents said using the high end would reduce the chance the actual revenue exceeds the estimate and thereby eliminate the constitutional requirement, under TABOR-related provisions, to return to voters and seek permission to retain higher-than-expected revenues or refund money.
Miss Bickel, a legislative staff presenter, and Mr. Lively told the committee the change was meant to align the specific dollar amounts used in ballot titles with constitutional provisions addressing phased-in taxes and the first full fiscal year of revenue. Lively described the change as an attempt to make the ballot title language and the statutory language used to assess whether excess revenue was collected more consistent.
Rep. Serota said she supported using the high end of the range to avoid repeat requests to voters, while also asking whether the blue book could continue to show a range so voters see both the high-end conservative figure and a midpoint estimate used for forecasting. Miss Bickel and Mr. Lively said the blue book could still describe a range and that the drafting focused on the single number that must appear in ballot titles.
Committee members also discussed whether the drafting should treat phased-in taxes the same as non‑phased-in taxes; staff flagged a drafting question tied to TABOR 3(c) and whether the “maximum dollar amount” should reflect a phased-in tax’s full phased-in year. Several members preferred more time to consider the policy and drafting tradeoffs.
Outcome: The committee did not advance LLS 0638 at this meeting. Staff told the committee the item need not be included in the supplemental packet and that more conversations were warranted before the JBC would decide whether to move it forward. The meeting record shows the committee recessed for further deliberation rather than taking a formal vote on the draft.
