San Miguel County weighs three November ballot measures, delays final approval until next week

San Miguel County commissioners on Aug. 27 reviewed proposed ballot language for three county questions to appear in the Nov. 2025 coordinated election and asked staff to return next week with minor edits and additional analysis.

County staff member Jared Bates told the board the three items would: (1) remove a 5.25% limit from the road and bridge levy and permanently reallocate 1.4 mills that have been discretionary in the general fund to road and bridge; (2) ask voters to remove the 5.25% limit entirely (language to lead with TABOR-required wording); and (3) place a separate 0.2‑mill question to raise road and bridge funding by a level of service estimated at about $302,000 in the first year. Bates said the second question, if it passed and the county levied a full 1.9 mills without the 5.25% restriction, would “collect approximately $202,110,000 dollars more in property tax revenue” (language in transcript). Bates said staff will recheck those calculations and asked commissioners to allow a further review by staff before approving final language.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff framed the items as a package of technical and modest increases to preserve road and bridge service levels, and noted the distinction between reallocating an existing county amount versus imposing a new tax. Commissioner Michelle Brown said tax‑burden sensitivity is high this year because the county is in the first year of a revaluation cycle and many taxpayers are seeing large increases in assessed values. Commissioner Mike Waring said the county could defer one of the increases to avoid ballot competition with the Norwood School District bond, which several residents and the Norwood School Bond Committee told commissioners could split votes.

What was discussed: Staff and commissioners debated whether the 0.2‑mill increase should remain on the November ballot. Brown summarized constituent feedback she had received from the Norwood School Bond Committee and said some voters told her they might choose between the school bond and a county levy if both are on the same ballot. Waring said Norwood may not have many opportunities in the near future to present a bond, and he was “sympathetic to foregoing the secondary increase question, in deference to the Norwood School District.” Bates and Road & Bridge manager Ryan (last name on file) described options like forming a special subdistrict limited to an area (for example, the East End) but said that would require a more involved legal process and is not a quick option.

Several staff and outside stakeholders also reported interest from other local advisory panels. Kathleen Merritt, representing ECAP, told commissioners ECAP voted to move a related early childhood/behavioral health question forward to the November ballot and would coordinate timing. Bates asked commissioners to hold off taking final action until staff could perform a last review of the language; commissioners agreed to revisit the matter at next week’s meeting.

Next steps and open questions: Commissioners asked staff to: (1) confirm revenue estimates and correct a transcription/formatting error in the numbers presented; (2) re‑review the title and first lines of the measures to ensure compliance with TABOR and state requirements and to consider whether language can better clarify the effect (for example, that reallocation does not increase tax rates); and (3) return with final language next week for formal action. Bates told the board he will ask county counsel and the county clerk about allowable title wording and the limits on changing prescriptive statutory language.

Ending: Commissioners did not vote on the measures on Aug. 27 and left the items on the agenda for final consideration at the next regular meeting, asking staff for one more review and for any suggested title edits before formal adoption of ballot language.