By Colorado Fiscal Institute Staff

The first regular session of the 72nd Colorado General Assembly is in the books. As of Friday, May 3, lawmakers are finished with their legislative work, and won’t return until next January. It could just be us, but for some reason the end of session reminded us of the late 1960s. Maybe it’s the flowers coming back (flower power!), or maybe it was a particularly contentious legislative session bringing out the protesting agitator in us. Whatever the reason, the ’60s, especially the music, were on our mind.

This session wasn’t quite as tumultuous as the ’60s, but it sure felt like one of the busiest in recent memory. CFI advocated for or against over two dozen bills–and those were just the ones that were introduced. We attended or listened to hundreds of hours of committee hearings. We testified. We shared research. We added our voice to the chorus calling for evidence-based policies that help people regardless of their race or zip code. CFI and our partner organizations played a critical role in finally passing into law some of the policies we’ve spent years working to advance. Not to be outdone, a bit of late-hour suspense had some of the most important bills of the session waiting until the last few days before passing (some even underwent major changes along the way).

With the ’60s on our minds, it’s no wonder all that uncertainty had us humming Buffalo Springfield’s “For What It’s Worth.” And to paraphrase that tune, the best way we can describe the 2019 session is: something was happening at the capitol, but it what it was, wasn’t always clear.

But while the legislative process on some bills was sometimes opaque at best, one thing was always clear: We’ll never stop fighting for what we believe. From giving parents and kids an easier path to saving for college, to making sure the state invests in a complete 2020 census count, we accomplished a lot this year. But our work is far from finished. We must do more to make sure the economic prosperity Colorado is experiencing is felt by everyone, whether they’re Black, white, Latinx, Asian, Indigenous, or belong to any of the other diverse communities in the state. The Colorado way of life shouldn’t just be for the privileged few. It should be accessible to every single person in the state.

Below are the bills CFI staff worked on during the year. And not to mix eras too much, but as we look forward to the rest of 2019 and onto 2020, we hope next year will be a little less Buffalo Springfield, and a little more Johnny Nash. (’90s-themed legislative wrap-up next year, anyone?)

Outtasight: CFI’s Priority Bills

HB19-1164 – Child Tax Credit   
Sponsors: Rep. Singer; Sens. Zenzinger & Priola
House Bill 19-1164 would have funded the Colorado child tax credit. The Child Tax Credit (CTC) is the largest federal tax code provision benefiting working families with children. It’s a proven, targeted way to reduce childhood poverty and put money back in to the pockets of Colorado families. In 2013, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 13-001 which created a refundable child tax credit between 5 and 30 percent of the federal credit for families with children 5 and under. At that time, budget concerns resulted in a financial trigger for the full implementation of the credit. In 2018, that trigger was met, and HB19-1164 would have fully funded the state child tax credit and helped hardworking families make ends meet.

CFI led a coalition of over 30 organizations in support HB19-1164, which would benefit over 200,000 Colorado families. The coalition advocated together with videos, social media graphics, and messages about the importance of a state child tax credit. The bill passed out of House Finance and made its way to House Appropriations, where it stayed until the end of the legislative session. (This is known as “dying on the calendar.”) CFI and our partners will continue to fight for meaningful policies for Colorado families, and we hope to see this bill again next year.

HB19-1184 – Demographic Notes
Sponsors: Reps. Herod & Caraveo; Sen. William

House Bill 19-1184 creates a pilot program for “demographic notes,” also known as equity impact statements. Similar to the way a fiscal note provides in-depth information to lawmakers and members of the public about the fiscal impact of legislation, demographic notes evaluate how a bill will affect Coloradans of different races, ethnicities, genders, ages, incomes and geographic areas.

CFI first spearheaded this legislation in 2017 and was excited to see it introduced again this year. After hearing feedback from a few of our community partners, we fought hard for improvements to this year’s bill, and were happy to see the addition of equity training and further expanding the demographic list for consideration.

This bill moved through the legislature with bipartisan support and was passed on the last day of the session and is awaiting the governor’s signature. We look forward to seeing the inclusion of demographic notes in next year’s legislative process.

HB 19-1280 – College Kickstarter Program
Sponsors: Speaker Becker & Rep. Herod; Maj. Leader Fenberg

House Bill 1280 creates the “College Kickstarter Program,” which is a new strategy to help more Colorado families save for college. The Kickstarter program will help parents open a college savings account (CSA) for every baby born in Colorado beginning in 2020 and will contribute $100 of seed money to each account. It will also create an optional financial literacy program run through the Treasurer’s office for parents to learn the ins and outs of saving for college and preparing for a child’s financial future.

One of CFI’s top priority bills this year, we developed the policy after research confirmed that children with even a small amount of money in a college savings account are three times more likely to go to college and four times more likely to graduate. Additionally, college savings accounts raise the hopes and aspirations for the future for both children and their parents. Programs like the College Kickstarter have been identified as a tool to help break down racial wealth barriers and increase economic asset-building. 

And though this is a policy we wholeheartedly support, the program’s funding mechanism is not ideal. The final version of the bill asks College Invest, a quasi-governmental entity that manages Colorado’s 529 accounts, to pay for each $100 College Kickstarter account incentive. Instead, CFI would have preferred setting a cap of $6,000 on the tax deduction for individuals who contribute to a 529 college saving account. Nonetheless, we are very excited about the passage of the bill and encouraged by the guardrails we advocated for being added to the bill – including an advisory committee and a legislative reporting process. Lawmakers passed the bill on April 29, and it is expected to be signed by the governor soon.

HB19-1239 – Census Outreach Grant Program
Sponsors: Reps. Tipper & Caraveo; Sens. Priola & Winter

The US census is one of the most fundamental aspects of our democracy. Every 10 years since 1790, we have conducted a count of every person living in the US. Along with determining legislative representation, the results of the census are used to determine the appropriation of federal funds to states. An accurate count of every Coloradan ensures the state receives its share of federal dollars, which are crucial to helping fund public investments like Medicaid, SNAP (formerly food stamps), and the National School Lunch Program. Unfortunately, the 2020 Census is facing many barriers including lack of funding and an untested (and potentially unconstitutional) citizenship question. These barriers will make it difficult for the state to ensure an accurate count of all Coloradans, particularly residents in “hard-to-count” communities.

CFI conducted an analysis that found the state would need to invest $12 million to ensure all Coloradans, including nearly 1.5 million hard-to-count people, participate in the census. This analysis served as the basis for House Bill 19-1239. Passed by the legislature on April 29, the bill creates a grant program in the Department of Local Affairs to distribute funds to community groups to conduct census outreach. Along with leading partners Common Cause, Together We Count, Mi Familia Vota, and the Colorado Civic Engagement Roundtable, we were able to secure the passage of the bill, and $6 million for census outreach efforts.

HB19-1245 – Vendor Credit for Affordable Housing
Sponsors: Rep. Weissman; Sens. Gonzales and Foote

Most Colorado businesses are required to collect sales tax on behalf of consumers. To help make the process easier for businesses, the law allows retailers to keep a portion of the sales tax they collect. This is called the vendor fee. House Bill 19-1245 increases the vendor credit and caps it at $1,000 per month. The changes in this bill will benefit more than 98 percent of all businesses and generates close to $50 million per year in revenue. Originally this money was earmarked for affordable housing. After some negotiation, the increased revenue was re-directed to support health care reinsurance for two years and then affordable housing every year after.  CFI has advocated for changes to the vendor credit for years, recognizing that the majority of the benefit goes to very large retailers in the state – those who have automated sales tax collections and remittal systems.  We were excited to work with Rep. Weissman on this bill to support small business and invest in sustainable funding for affordable housing. 

HB19-1317 – Senior Housing Security Act of 2019
Sponsors: Reps. Kennedy and Weissman; Sen. Court

CFI has been working with Rep. Kennedy and Rep. Weissman to address the inequities and sustainability issues in the senior homestead exemption for several years. After continued research, analysis and stakeholder input, House Bill 19-1317 was introduced with less than one month left in the session. HB19-1317 would have created an income tax credit for older Coloradans in lieu of the senior homestead exemption. The income-based, refundable credit would have been available to all seniors who make $65,000 or less per year, regardless of housing situation.

After the bill was introduced, the sponsors didn’t feel that the policy was ready to move through the process. They made a strategic decision to hear testimony on the bill and then postpone it indefinitely at the sponsor’s request on April 18. CFI testified on the bill about our recent report addressing the inequities in the current senior homestead exemption. We look forward to continuing to work on this issue over the summer and next session. 

SB 19-188 – FAMLI Act
Sponsors: Sens. Winter & Williams, Reps. Gray & Duran

One of CFI’s main priority bills in 2019 was the passage of a strong and inclusive paid family and medical leave program. After working with a diverse coalition of more than 100 organizations as well as a number of business stakeholders, Senate Bill 19-188, the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program (FAMLI) was introduced. The initial bill, based on comprehensive data and objective research, created a state-run social insurance program that would provide up to 12 weeks of wage replacement for workers needing time off to care for themselves or a loved one when faced with a serious medical illness, to bond with a new baby, or to address needs arising from military deployment or the effects of domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault. The program was available to all workers and businesses, offered progressive wage replacement and job protection so workers who needed leave would not fear retaliation or job loss.

SB19-188 was the most lobbied bill of the 2019 legislative session with nearly 200 lobbyists, most affiliated with large corporations, working actively to kill the bill. Facing this intense pressure, a handful of Senate Democrats and the Governor’s office forced bill sponsors to amend the bill to be an implementation plan that includes a feasibility and actuarial study.

As amended, SB19-188 does not create the program that we at CFI believe, based on research and evidence, is the most equitable, adequate and affordable program for Colorado. But it keeps us on the path to such a program – one that helps ensure the lowest wage workers and those who lack access to paid leave today are not excluded.

Groovy Bills to Protect Colorado’s Health, Safety, and Environment

SB 19-181 – Protect Public Welfare Oil And Gas Operations
Sponsors: Maj. Leader Fenberg & Sen. Foote; Speaker Becker & Rep. Caraveo

Senate Bill 181 prioritizes the protection of public health, safety and the environment by updating and clarifying oil and gas regulations. The bill has several components; the highlights include:

• Changing the mission of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from fostering oil and gas development to regulating oil and gas development.
• Restructuring the make-up of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission by reducing the number of industry members to one and requiring one member with training or substantial experience in wildlife protection; environmental protection; soil conservation or reclamation; public health; and one member who is an active agricultural producer or a royalty owner.
• Allowing local governments more autonomy over the impacts of oil and gas development.
• Removing the permit fee cap.
• Increasing the threshold of forced pooling from 0% to more than 50% of the mineral interest owners.
  

CFI was asked to testify on the bill and speak about our analysis of the impact of oil and gas on the Colorado economy. We were glad to play a role in this important environmental policy and encouraged by the strides Colorado made towards protecting our communities. 

HB 19-1261 – Climate Action Plan to Reduce Pollution
Sponsors: Speaker Becker & Rep. Jackson; Sens. Winter & Williams

Colorado is already seeing the negative impacts of climate change in increasing wildfires, lower water levels impacting agriculture and fishing, shorter ski seasons, and poor air quality impacting public health. This session, the legislature took the bold and forward-thinking step to implement a climate policy that allows Colorado to reduce harmful pollution and protect the Colorado way of life.

House Bill 1261 outlines a framework for Colorado to reduce carbon pollution from 2005 levels at least 25 percent by 2026, 50 percent by 2030, and 90 percent by 2050.  CFI testified on the bill and was excited to see it pass in the last days of the session.

HB 19-1314 – Just Transition
Sponsors: Speaker Becker & Rep. Galindo; Sens. Winter & Donovan

With the move away from fossil fuels, many Colorado communities that are economically dependent on these industries are struggling to transition. House Bill 1314 paves the way for an equitable transition by creating a “Just Transition Office” responsible for determining the timing and location of mine and powerplant closures and the impact on workers, businesses, and coal transition communities and providing resources and benefits to coal transition workers including wage replacement and job training. CFI testified on this bill and worked with both the environmental and labor community to craft and support this important policy for Colorado workers. 

HB 19-1159 – Modify Innovative Motor Vehicle Income Tax Credits
Sponsors: Reps. Jaquez Lewis & Gray; Sen. Danielson

House Bill 1159 extends Colorado’s tax credit for new purchased or leased electric vehicles through 2025. The amount of the credit for passenger vehicles will be $2,500 in 2022 and $2,000 in 2023-2025 for passenger vehicles and $1,500 for leased vehicles.

Because the electric vehicle tax credit is only available to new purchased or leased vehicles, individuals who purchase pre-owned or used electric vehicles are not eligible to receive the credit. This creates more inequity in Colorado’s already “upside down” tax code. CFI is continuing to work with partners to increase the equity of this credit and make the credit more effective in building a robust EV market.

Right On: Bills to Help Housing Affordability(HB19-1118, SB19-180, SB19-225, HB19-1170)        

This legislative session, CFI continued our work with housing advocates to make significant advancements in renters’ rights and affordable housing in Colorado. First, we worked with partners on a bill to secure much needed tenant protections for renters across the state. As a top ten landlord friendly state, Colorado statutes overwhelmingly benefit landlords over tenants, making it increasingly difficult for Coloradans to stay in their homes, especially with skyrocketing rents. That’s why CFI signed on in support of HB19-1170, the Residential Tenants Health and Safety Act, to strengthen the state’s Warranty of Habitability statute.

CFI also testified in support of HB19-1118, Time Period to Cure Lease Violation and SB19-180, Eviction Legal Defense Fund, both of which would provide more support and resources for Coloradans facing eviction. Due to the great efforts of our housing partners at 9to5, Enterprise Community Partners, Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, and the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, the two bills passed and are on their way to the governor’s desk.

Finally, CFI testified in support of SB19-225, which would have repealed the state ban on rent control. Because housing issues vary widely across the state, CFI believes that local governments are best situated to make housing decisions that will benefit Coloradans in their respective communities. Unfortunately, SB19-225 died in the Senate, but advocates look forward to continuing this work and introducing the bill in future sessions.      

Far Out: Economic Security and Financial Equity Bills

SB 19-238 – Improve Wages and Accountability For Home Care Workers
Sponsors: Sens. Danielson & Moreno; Rep. Kennedy & Duran

CFI supported home healthcare and personal care workers through Senate Bill 238, a bill that will make sure more of the money that Medicaid pays service providers gets to the paychecks of workers. CFI wrote an issue brief analyzing personal care worker wages and testified about our findings in committee. 

SB 19-173 – Colorado Secure Savings Plan Board
Sponsors: Sens. Donovan & Pettersen; Reps. Kraft-Tharp & Hansen

This bill creates the Secure Savings Plan Board, which will oversee the completion of several studies of various retirement system options for Colorado’s private sector workers who do not currently have a way to save for retirement through their job. The Board will be comprised of seven people with financial and other expertise appointed by the Governor, and the State Treasurer. The studies will determine the feasibility of an automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRA system (also called an auto-IRA) and a small business retirement plan marketplace system, an analysis of the effects of greater retirement savings among Colorado residents, and an analysis of the effects of not establishing some kind of statewide retirement savings system for Colorado. The Board will be tasked with reviewing the results of these studies and making recommendations to the legislature about the best path forward.

SB19-002 – Regulate Student Education Loan Servicers
Sponsors: Sen. Winter & Maj. Leader Fenberg; Reps. Roberts & Jackson

Under current law, student loan servicers – companies that administers loans for borrowers – are unregulated. This bill creates a requirement that student loan servicers be licensed under the Uniform Consumer Credit Code. It also specifies which actions by a servicer are prohibited, and when violations of the law constitute a deceptive trade practice. SB19-002 also creates a student loan ombudsperson to help borrowers who run into problems with their loan servicers.

Fab Bills to Help Immigrant Communities

SB 19-139 – More Road and Community Safety Act Offices
Sponsors: Sens. Moreno & Coram; Reps. Galindo & Singer

Senate Bill 139 is the I-Drive coalition’s legislation to expand the number of motor vehicle offices that process licenses for undocumented immigrants from three to eight. This bi-partisan bill passed both chambers and sent to the Governor, who has indicated that he will sign it. The Long Bill, 2019-2020 budget, also contained a footnote that lifts the arbitrary cap on the number of licenses that can be issued under the program.

House Bill 19- 1124 – Protect Coloradans from Federal Government Oversight
Sponsors: Reps. Benavidez & Lontine, Sens. Foote & Gonzales

CFI also supported the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition’s main priority bill, Virginia’s Law, a bill that would designate public spaces like courts, hospitals and schools as safe spaces for immigrants from ICE operations. Unfortunately, Virginia’s Law never materialized as Democratic leadership in the House and Governor’s office signaled that they would not support it.
In place of a more comprehensive bill, CIRC brought forward House Bill 19-1124. This bill incorporated many of the enforcement priorities that would have been contained in Virginia’s Law, but was greatly diminished in order to win support from the governor and majority leadership. HB19-1124 now merely requires a judicial warrant for detaining an immigrant and requires probation officers to advise immigrants of their rights.

What a Drag: Bills We Opposed

SB19-055 – Reduce State Income Tax
Sponsors: Sen. Sonnenberg, Rep. Pelton
HB19-1097 – General Fund Reductions
Sponsor: Min. Leader Neville

Our issue brief on income tax reductions heavily shaped the debate around two bills coming from the Republicans and one from the Governor’s office that never materialized. Senate Bill 19-055 would have reduced the income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.49%. House Bill 19-1097 would have dropped the income tax to 4.25%. Both bills were defeated this session and CFI was the first to point out the inequities these types of plans exacerbate in the tax code. 

House Bill 19-1058 – Income Tax Benefits For Family Leave
Sponsor: Reps. Landgraf & Beckman, Sen. Priola

This bill would have created tax deferred savings accounts for paid leave and tax incentives to businesses that contribute to those accounts for their employees. Tax-preferred savings accounts and other tax breaks for paid family and medical leave are untargeted, inefficient giveaways that provide larger tax shelters and enhanced benefits to high income earners, while doing little to give average working families access to paid family and medical leave. These policies widen inequality, take resources from other general fund priorities, and do little to expand available resources for the benefit policymakers want to create. We were glad to see this bill fail in a House committee.

Referred Ballot Measures

HB 19-1257 – “De-Brucing”
Sponsors: Speaker Becker & Rep. McCluskie; Sens. Court & Priola

House Bill 1257 refers a ballot measure to voters in 2019 that would, if approved, allow the state to keep and use all the revenue it collects from all sources of revenue. Known as “de-Brucing,” this measure would align Colorado revenue policy with the policy in most states by allowing the legislature, rather than an arbitrary formula added to the state constitution nearly 30 years ago, to determine how to allocate revenue for state priorities. The revenue retained due to the proposed changes would be used for K-12, higher education, and roads, bridges, and transit.  And while HB 1257 is not a solution to the state’s fiscal woes, it is a necessary and logical step toward fiscal prudency. For our full analysis, click here. A companion bill with the same sponsors, HB19-1258, allocates where the money goes if voters decide to “de-bruce.”

HB 19-1333 – Cigarette Tobacco & Nicotine Products Tax
Sponsors: Rep. Caraveo; Sen. Fields

House Bill 19-1333 would have referred a measure to voters in 2019 to tax a broader set of nicotine products and increase excise tax rates on cigarettes and other tobacco products. The measure was projected to raise $317 million in revenue that would have been used to help fund new programs in health care and education.

If voters had approved HB19-1333, it would have been the first tax on E-cigarettes. The new tax was proposed to be 62% of the manufacture price.  The proposed tax rate for non-cigarette tobacco products would also have been 62%, an increase from the current 40% of manufacture price. For cigarettes, the proposed per-pack tax was $1.75, up from the current tax of $.84.

The heath care spending authorized in HB19-1333 includes money for prevention and cessation programs, efforts to reduce health insurance premiums and enhancements for child and youth behavioral health services. The education spending authorized would be used for Pre-K program enhancement including expansion of the Colorado Preschool program and for an expansion of out of school activities funding.

The bill narrowly passed the House but died on second reading in the Senate on the penultimate day of the Session.

HB19-1327 – Authorize and Tax Sports Betting
Sponsors: Maj. Leader Garnett & Min. Leader Neville; Sens. Donovan & Cooke

House Bill 19-1327 refers a measure to voters in 2019 to legalize sports betting in Colorado. If voters agree, the state would be authorized to issue licenses to casino license holders in Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek. The measure would authorize a 10% tax on “Net Sports Betting Proceeds” (the revenue that the license holder makes after paying out winnings) that would be deposited in the Sports Betting Fund. 

The proposed tax is estimated to raise between $9.7 million to $11.2 million. The proceeds will be used for startup costs for the sports betting activities, operation of sports betting within the Division of Gaming, and a hold harmless requirement if other gaming tax funds are reduced due to sports betting. The bulk of the funds are to be used to contribute to the costs of implementing the State Water Plan. The bill passed the legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature.

By Carol Hedges

Although it was painfully slow at times, the economy has finally rebounded from the Great Recession. The discussions at the state capitol about funding public investments like K-12 education, transportation, and health care are full of words like “excess” and “surplus.” And yet, even with a slowdown on the horizon according to the most recent forecasts from state economists, Colorado isn’t able to fully take advantage of the best of times.

Confused yet? Colorado’s unique constitutional tax and budget constraints tend to have that effect on people.

You don’t need to be an economist to know the economy grows and contracts over time, and those ups and downs affect everything from the price of groceries to the number of available jobs. Those fluctuations also mean the government collects more money in taxes when the economy is healthy and less in taxes during recessions. But people still need public services supported by those tax dollars even when the economy is struggling. In fact, that need usually increases during economic downturns because more people are out of work and can’t make ends meet.

At the end of the day, the revenue increases generated in good economic times are the only resources available to offset the cuts that have to be made during bad times.

For most states, this is a problem, but a solvable one. During good times, investments increase to help offset cuts from bad times, and state reserves grow so the eventual cuts are less painful. But in Colorado, where an arbitrary formula added to the constitution 1992 determines how much revenue the state can keep, lawmakers find their hands tied.

The law embedded in the constitution to restrict spending and saving tax revenue during good times relies on a formula that neither reflects economic growth nor measures increases in the costs of providing the public services that help our communities thrive. Unfortunately, this is by design. The formula is intended to shrink government over time by limiting revenue when the economy is growing. This, despite the fact that the only time government can save for potential downturns is when the economy is growing.

Here’s a practical example of how recent economic cycles have affected Colorado’s budget: In FY 2009-2010, tax revenue fell by 13 percent. At the same time, the number of kids in Colorado schools went up 1.7 percent, the number of people on Medicaid went up by 14.2 percent, and the number of students enrolled in higher education went up 10 percent. Colorado’s population grew by over 76,000 people and the number of vehicles on our roads increase by 23,000. Because the state is required to produce a balanced budget every year, funding for public schools fell, funding for colleges and universities fell (causing tuition to rise), and the state postponed scheduled maintenance for highways. 

Thankfully, it’s now 2019, and state revenue is growing (this is reflected in the budget lawmakers passed and Gov. Polis signed last week). The growth in revenue is being used to pay back some of the cuts made to K-12 education, a tab that still amounts to over $600 million this year alone. New dollars appropriated for higher education will be enough to avoid additional tuition increases but they will not be enough to lower tuition. The state will invest more money in transportation, as it usually does when the economy is expanding, but it will barely make a dent in billions of dollars in backlogged projects. 

And still, despite these obvious and widely supported needs, over the last few years millions of dollars in revenue was rebated to taxpayers in one form or another. The state constitution prevents all the revenue collected during good times from being used to offset cuts or even save for the next downturn. In other words, we make our communities feel the brunt of bad times without the benefit of the good times.

Fortunately, a commonsense, bipartisan effort is moving forward in the legislature to give voters an opportunity to weigh in on whether it still makes sense to prevent ourselves from using all the revenue collected for critical investments. HB19-1257 and HB19-1258 will allow voters decide whether or not to invest that revenue in K-12 public schools, state colleges and universities, and transportation projects.

This effort (Sometimes called “de-Brucing”) would give the state the same authority voters in many local communities have already given their school boards, county commissioners, and city councils. Voters in most school districts, counties, cities and special districts have decided to eliminate the arbitrary cap on revenue like the one the state is still required to use.

Think about it like this: Without de-Brucing, when the next economic downturn arrives, state government will be like a worker who loses their job and is out of work for a while, but after finally finding a new job, they can only keep a portion of their income. That wouldn’t make sense for a worker and it doesn’t make sense for governments that work to support our communities.

One thing this proposal will not do, however, is result in full funding of our schools. It will not provide enough resources to allow our colleges to decrease tuition. Our state highways, bridges, and public transit systems will still need billions of new dollars to pay for every needed project. De-brucing is a small step we can take to keep schools, transportation, and higher education from falling even farther behind.

While de-brucing is not a silver bullet to take care of all the state’s fiscal woes, it is a necessary, prudent, and commonsense step towards more responsible fiscal policy. It will mean the state will have options during good economic times for how to deal with cuts that occur during bad economic times. It will mean the pool of money that can be used to offset cuts will not be artificially reduced. It will mean that the folks we elect to manage our public finances will have a bigger toolbox. It’s the least we can do.

Take action with CFI and ask your legislator to support HB19-1257 and HB19-1258 and take a necessary step in supporting our communities priorities. 

Take Action Today

Today is April 1, which means you’ve probably already spent way too much time trying to figure out whether you’re reading an April Fool’s Day joke. Rest assured, you won’t find any pranks, put-ons, or practical jokes here. That’s because April 1 is also Census Day, and that means we’re officially one year away from the 2020 census. In case it’s been too long since you took civics, the US Constitution requires the federal government count every person living in the country every ten years – no matter their race, ethnicity, age, gender, status, political affiliation, or geographic location. Next year’s census will be the 24^th since the first was taken in 1790, which found the entire US population was less than 4 million people.

Thanks to the census, we know the US population has now grown to nearly 330 million. But the census count determines a lot more than just knowing how many people live in the US. The census is also one of the most fundamental parts of our democracy. An accurate count helps guarantee that each state receives the appropriate number of seats in the House of Representatives, it influences how states draw their legislative districts, and equally as important, an accurate population count ensures we have the public investments that help our communities thrive. That’s because each state’s share of federal funding for everything from health care to transportation is determined by the census, including some of our most important tools for lifting families out of poverty.

Services that help struggling families put food on the table or see a doctor, like SNAP and Medicaid, don’t just help Coloradans make ends meet, they provide a stabilizing force for local economies during recessions. And programs that help ensure our students are successful in school, like the National School Lunch Program and Head Start, lay a strong foundation for future generations. The census determines funding for all of these programs and much more.

Unfortunately, the 2020 census is in jeopardy due to inadequate funding and an unprecedented and untested citizenship question. Not only has Congress instructed the Census Bureau not to spend more on the 2020 census than it did on the 2010 census (despite census costs doubling over the last twenty years), but the US Department of Commerce, which has authority over the Census Bureau, has proposed asking respondents whether or not they are US citizens. While the issue of whether this question will end up appearing on the 2020 census form is ultimately expected to be decided by the US Supreme Court, advocates for a fair and accurate census count worry it will push people away from participating.

These barriers threaten Colorado’s ability to ensure an accurate count of all people, particularly residents in “hard-to-count” communities, including immigrants, people of color, Coloradans who earn low incomes, Native Americans, Coloradans living in rural communities, people who speak and understand limited amounts of English, and many others. A report from the George Washington Institute for Public Policy found that just a 1 percent undercount in 2010 would have meant a loss of over $63 million per year for the state.

A recent analysis by CFI found that the state would need to invest $12 million to ensure that all Coloradans, including nearly 1.5 million hard-to-count people, are indeed counted. With as much as $800 billion in federal funding at stake, several states have appropriated funds and created Complete Count Committees (CCC) to ensure an accurate count in 2020.

Trusted CCCs are volunteer groups created by state and local governments, community groups, and/or organizations focused on increasing awareness of and participation in the census through “trusted community messengers.” A $12 million-dollar investment would allow the state to allocate resources to trusted organizations and community groups in each of the 64 counties based on each county’s share of the hard-to-count population. Lawmakers, informed by this research, have introduced HB19-1239, which will provide state grants to assist with complete count efforts.

The importance of the census cannot be understated. If we want to guarantee Colorado receives enough federal funding to ensure all of our diverse communities have the resources they need, then we have to properly invest in an accurate count in 2020. The state stands to benefit from, or lose out on, billions in federal dollars over the next ten years if we don’t act now and invest in census outreach efforts.

You don’t need to be a civics expert to see why a complete count is a big deal. If you want to make sure Coloradans are counted completely, accurately, and fairly, then take action today and urge legislators to invest in census advocacy efforts by voting yes on HB19-1239.

Highlights

• While different approaches exist for how best to articulate the economic impact of the oil and gas industry, Colorado Fiscal Institute’s analysis of federal economic data finds total jobs attributable directly to oil and gas development averaged just over 29,300, or less than 1 percent of total covered employment in Colorado, from 2006-2016.
  
  
• State data show economic activity created directly by oil and gas development averaged a modest 2.5 percent of total state GDP from 2014-2017.
  
• Other issues outside of the scope of changing oil and gas regulations should be considered, including how development of new technologies and other efficiencies, as well as the global energy economy and commodity prices, will affect the industry; and the economic impact of health outcomes associated with air pollution.

Introduction

Colorado’s environment, health, energy, and economy always live in a delicate balance with one another. This balance has been shaken in recent years, as a record-high number of oil and gas wells mean Coloradans are seeing drilling operations closer to residential neighborhoods than ever before. This tension became front page news after a deadly home explosion in 2017 in the town of Firestone was determined to have been caused by an improperly capped natural gas well.

Though the Firestone explosion was an extreme example, accidents involving oil and gas operations are not an unusual occurrence according to state data compiled by The Denver Post in 2018. For instance, while the annual number of oil spills is down from a peak of 792 in 2014, there were still 590 such incidents in 2018 – about 11 per week. In total, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has issued nearly $20 million in fines for regulatory violations since 2014 according to their annual reporting.

With residents and environmental advocates calling for solutions, state legislative leaders introduced a bill (Senate Bill 19-181) in 2019 that would, among other provisions, allow local governments to determine whether or not to allow oil and gas industry activity in their towns, cities, and counties. Groups representing the oil and gas industry have been vocal in their opposition to the proposal, which they say could have the effect of severely limiting drilling, or even ending the industry altogether. Such consequences, they argue, would have a devastating effect on Colorado’s economy.

As is the case with regulation of any industry, there are always trade-offs between the freedom of those industries to operate without limitation, and the freedom of the people to determine what legal safeguards are necessary for their safety and health. Colorado also has a long history of local control over various economic sectors, both public and private, including local school districts controlling curriculum and local governments deciding whether to allow certain businesses to operate within their boundaries.

Lawmakers must always strive to strike the right balance between these freedoms, while being mindful of the potential economic consequences if they fall out of balance. Therefore, it is imperative they have all the facts about the role any industry plays in the overall economy.

Oil and gas and Colorado’s economy

Though analyzing the economic impact of the oil and gas industry may seem like a straightforward task on its face, articulating it is complicated. Industry trade groups say the total impact of the oil and gas industry in Colorado’s economy as a share of GDP is as high as $13.5 billion. However, data from state and federal sources show the total economic impact of the industry to be significantly lower. The discrepancy between these figures can, at least in part, be attributed to differences in how much economic activity is directly created by oil and gas development, and how much comes from other services indirectly related to it. The Colorado Fiscal Institute limits our analysis to the former.

According to the nonpartisan Legislative Council, the total economic impact of oil and gas extraction varied during a three-year period between 2014-2016 from a high of $11.3 billion (3.7 percent of GDP) in 2014 to a low of just under $6 billion (1.8 percent of GDP) in 2016. That averages out to just under 2.5 percent of the state’s total GDP during the same three-year period.

Similar differences in data exist when the focus turns to the number of jobs sustained by oil and gas development, with industry groups reporting a number anywhere from 185,000-200,000 jobs in Colorado.

CFI’s examination of Bureau of Economic Analysis statistics for direct oil and gas employment shows the number of jobs is modest, averaging just over 29,000 in the decade between 2006 and 2016, though the overall economic strength of the state has buoyed the most recent number of jobs to over 40,000 in 2016.

What could be interpreted as a disagreement between these data should instead be seen as a range. On the low end, the industry employs an average of less than one percent of the workforce, with the high end around 5 percent of total employment. Similarly, the industry accounts for anywhere from 2.5 percent of GDP on the low end to what has historically been as high as 4 percent on the high end.

Ultimately, while Senate Bill 19-181 would present significant regulatory changes for oil and gas developers, it would not ban drilling or any drilling techniques, including hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking). Additionally, the likelihood of a local government like Weld County – where around 80 percent of current oil and gas extraction activities take place – banning development is low. These factors must be taken into account when estimating the potential loss in economic output or jobs from changes to oil and gas regulations.

Impact on the state budget

Another argument raised by critics of SB19-181 is the potential for a reduction in state and local tax revenue generated from oil and gas activity. Industry-backed analysis released this month shows the state could stand to lose up to $1.3 billion a year in revenue over the next 10 years if all oil and gas operations in the state were to cease. Legislative Council’s research, on the other hand, paints a slightly less dire picture; with just under $570 million in annual tax receipts in Fiscal Year 2016-17, the lion’s share going to local property taxes. CFI’s analysis shows the oil and gas industry contributes just one-quarter of one percent of Colorado’s sales and use tax and only 6.6 percent of the state’s corporate income tax.

If the economy is able to absorb most of the potential lost jobs and share of the GDP, the implications for state and local tax revenue may end up being minimal.

Non-regulatory factors

Regulations are not the only reason why the economic impact of the industry might change, or the number of jobs supported by the industry might rise or fall. For instance, federal data show that while new-well oil production per rig in the Niobara region (which includes most of Northeastern Colorado) has risen, the actual number of oil and natural gas wells has fallen. The reason for the increase in production while the number of new drilling rigs has declined is advancements in technology, including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Technological advances like these mean production can increase substantially while the number of jobs created by the industry may be much smaller.

Another factor to consider is the natural boom and bust cycle of the industry. This cycle is tied to the global economy, which even the staunchest critic of oil and gas regulation would admit effects the industry regardless of the regulatory system of any particular state government.

Finally, one impact of oil and gas development isn’t calculated by most economic analyses. The environmental impact of the industry, whether through the long-term consequences of global climate change, or through increased health problems from air pollutants caused by oil and natural gas drilling, is not reflected in calculations of jobs and GDP. Poor air quality, in part due to oil and gas development, contributes to increased incidents of asthma, more hospital visits, and lower productivity due to missed days of school and work. (For more information about how reduction in fossil fuel consumption for electric generation can improve health outcomes, see CFI’s analysis of the Colorado Energy Plan.)

Conclusion

Colorado’s oil and gas industry is like any business interest or government entity. When state government considers the best way to balance the interests of a particular industry with the health and well-being of citizens, a delicate balance must be struck. That balance must take into account the risks associated with a lack of action, and the economic or other consequences of any potential tightening of rules and regulations.

Estimates of the economic impact of the industry vary widely. How close Colorado is to one end of the range or the other depends on who is analyzing the numbers and how they are analyzing them. Either way, Colorado’s diverse economy is strong and could very well absorb whatever losses occur due to policy changes.

Ultimately, nothing in Senate Bill 19-181, or any change in existing law, will change the role of the global economy and the broader oil and gas economy. Business cycles, including booms and busts, will continue with or without passage of the bill.

Lawmakers should take this into consideration, along with the potential risks of doing nothing at all, when they consider their votes on Senate Bill 19-181.

Abbey Pizel contributed to this report.

1. The General Fund budget outlook for 2019-20 is very similar to December estimates

via GIPHY

Although the FY2019-20 budget will have less revenue than analysts thought when they made their December forecast – projections for General Fund revenue were reduced by $250 million because of slower economic activity – legislators will still have $1.22 billion more to budget or save this year compared to last year’s forecast. The reduction in revenue collections were offset by a reduction in the General Fund obligation to pay for TABOR rebates. 

2. There will be a large reduction in TABOR rebates this year and no rebates next year

via GIPHY

Legislative Council staff, which estimated in December that Colorado would return $380 million in TABOR rebates for FY2018-19, now believes there will only be $65 million in rebates for the current budget year. For FY2019-20 and 2020-21, analysts no longer forecast any TABOR rebates at all.

3. Slowing home price appreciation won’t hurt property tax collections as much as you might think

via GIPHY

The Gallagher Amendment limits residential property tax collections (i.e. taxes for houses and condos) to roughly 45 percent of total property tax collections. That means when property values increase at a steady clip, as has been the case the last few years, Gallagher has the effect of actually reducing the rate used to determine the amount of a home’s property subject to tax. While the residential assessment rate is still projected to fall next year from 7.2% to 6.78%, it’s less than might have been the case if home prices continued to rise at the same historic rate. While this news isn’t as bad as it could have been, for fire districts and other local governments that rely on property tax revenue from homes, budget cuts forced by Gallagher will continue. That’s especially true for districts in areas where home price appreciation continues to lag the gains seen along the Front Range.

4. Internet sales tax is projected to be between $47-$72 million next year

via GIPHY

Because of the US Supreme Court decision in Wayfair v. South Dakota,Colorado will see new sales tax revenue collected for online transactions. Legislators are already discussing what to do with the money, though it only reflects a small increase in the $15 billion General Fund. It’s important to remember this figure only reflects what the state expects to collect; sales tax collections are also expected to increase for local governments like towns, cities, and counties.   

5. An increase in school property taxes frees up $100 million in the General Fund for other priorities

via GIPHY

Local school property tax growth this year has generated enough money to cover the $100 million lawmakers budgeted last year for inflation and the annual increase in the number of students in the K-12 system. While there will be significant pressure to keep that money in the K-12 system, the Joint Budget Committee and their legislative colleagues will have the authority to use the freed up $100 million for priorities outside K-12 (e.g. investments in transportation or higher education) if they choose.

The first and only Constitutional Convention, convened in 1787, created the framework for the United States Constitution and the government we know today. To ensure a balance of power, the framers included Article V of the Constitution, which outlines mechanisms for future constitutional amendments.

Article V contains two ways to amend the United States Constitution:

1. Congress can propose amendments
2. States can call for a Constitutional Convention (Article V Convention)

Two Paths Forward 

Under Article V, Congress has the authority to propose Constitutional amendments. Any amendment proposed must pass through each chamber of Congress by a two-thirds majority and then be ratified by three-fourths (or 38) of the 50 states. Alternatively, Article V allows the states to call a Constitutional Convention if two-thirds (or 34) of 50 states submit a resolution proposing an amendment on one or many topics (or just a general call for convention without proposing a specific topic). Amendments proposed during a Constitutional Convention must also be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Since the first Constitutional Convention, Congress has proposed 33 constitutional amendments and 27 have been ratified.

There has never been a Constitutional Convention called by the states. However, many states have made efforts to call a convention. Estimates show state legislatures have passed hundreds of resolutions calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention in the last 200 years. Today, 42 states have at least one Article V resolution pending.

Article V Efforts

Nationally, several efforts are underway to call a Constitutional Convention. Interest in a convention spans the political spectrum with support and opposition coming from both Democrats and Republicans. Some focus on a single topic, while others have multiple amendments based on broader topics. Of all the applications, a federal balanced budget amendment has gained the most traction, making it the most likely candidate to convene an Article V Constitutional Convention. 

The Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBATF), one of the primary groups working towards a balanced budget amendment, began in 1957 when Indiana passed the first Article V resolution on this topic. Today, 28 states – including Colorado – have passed resolutions calling for a convention to discuss a balanced budget amendment. That means if six more states call for a balanced budget amendment, a constitutional convention could be convened. Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington have all been targeted by BBATF.  

Another effort led by the Convention of States (COS) is working on a convening based on three topics: limiting the federal government’s powers, restraining fiscal spending, and establishing term limits for members of Congress and other federal elected officials. According to The Economist, COS passed its first resolution in 2014 and has since passed resolutions in 12 states. While COS has passed fewer resolutions than the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, the group is deemed to be better funded than BBATF and boasts 3 million volunteers nationally.

A third effort is from a group known as Wolf PAC, whose interest in a Constitutional Convention is centered around campaign finance. Wolf PAC’s resolution, Free & Fair Elections, would attempt to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. To date, Wolf PAC’s resolution has passed in five states.

Most leading campaign finance reform organizations oppose the use of an Article V convention to overturn Citizens United. They warn the lack of rules to govern the process mean every Americans’ constitutional rights may be subject to change in an Article V convention. Notable campaign finance and democracy reform organizations that oppose the use of an Article V convention to deal with campaign finance include: the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, the Center for Popular Democracy, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Democracy for America, Every Voice, the Fair Elections Legal Network, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, People For the American Way, and the Voting Rights Institute.

Colorado

In Colorado, the first Article V Constitutional Convention resolution was submitted near the turn of the 20^th century. Since then, Colorado has submitted two resolutions, one of which was a balanced budget amendment. Most recently, the Wolf PAC’s resolution was introduced in Colorado during the 2018 legislative session but did not pass out of committee.

Cause for Concern

1. Lack of Concrete Rules – A lack of concrete rules could lead to a ‘runaway’ convention where, once convened, any amendment could be proposed. This would put many of our most fundamental and cherished Constitutional and human rights at risk – everything from unreasonable search and seizure to the right to keep and bear arms. Additionally, because there was not a formal count of the states calling for a convention until only recently, there exists some “fuzzy math” on how close we are to meeting the two-thirds threshold. This concern, based largely on an aggregation of non-issue-specific calls for a constitutional convention, including some that go back to the nineteenth century, has been raised by several Colorado-based groups.
2. Unequal Representation – The Constitution does not contain guidelines for how each state would be represented. For example, state representation could be one delegate per state, based on population, or a combination of the two.
3. Influence of Special Interests – Groups with the most funding, the best connections, or the most resources could impact the outcome of the convention for their own interests, rather than the best interest of the people.
4. Uncertain Ratification Guidelines – Opinions differ on the criteria for approving amendments.

Where are we going?

In addition to potentially dangerous questions and concerns regarding fundamental values like human rights, there is also substantial uncertainty as to how an Article V Constitutional Convention could be convened fairly. Without concrete rules, a convention could put at risk many of the Constitutional rights held dear by those living in the United States. The number of balanced budget amendments inching towards two-thirds majority, along with novel attempts to call a convention using unrelated applications, increases the urgency for ensuring states and people know about the uncertainty and the potential harm an unrestricted convention could cause.

There are ways to address money in politics, government accountability and other important issues without opening up the Constitution to other major changes.States can protect constitutional rights by rescinding their applications for an Article V convention. Given how close we are to wealthy special interests calling a convention, rescinding a state’s convention application is more important now than ever.

By rescinding previous Article V convention applications, some of which were passed decades ago, legislators are making a commonsense update to where the state stands. That’s why so many rescission resolutions in states across the country have passed with bipartisan support.

Legal and constitutional scholars from both sides of the political spectrum agree that legislatures have the power to rescind their previous applications for an Article V convention, which means they will no longer be counted towards any calls for a convention.

The Child Tax Credit (CTC) is the largest federal tax code provision benefiting working families with children. It is a proven, targeted way to reduce childhood poverty and put money back into the pockets of Colorado families. The Colorado Legislature is considering a bill that would fully fund a state-level Child Tax Credit, HB 19-1164. A state Child Tax Credit will put millions back into local economies and provide better outcomes for children in low- and moderate-income families. It is an investment in our families and children that encourages and rewards work and provides better educational and economic outcomes over a lifetime.

Watch this video and learn why the Child Tax Credit is so important to Colorado Families.

This event has ended but stay in touch! Sign up to receive regular updates from us.

By Chris Stiffler

Introduction

Many older Coloradans and veterans with disabilities have come to rely on the tax savings they receive from the state’s senior homestead property exemption. Although the original intent of the law was to allow more people to remain in their homes, analysis of the available data by the Colorado Fiscal Institute found the exemption does not help as many people as it could. That analysis showed:

• About half of older Coloradans don’t qualify for the exemption, either because they rent or because they haven’t lived in their homes for more than 10 years.
• The exemption disproportionately benefits white homeowners over homeowners of other races.
• Those who qualify for the exemption are slightly less likely to be experiencing poverty than all older Coloradans.

Background

Amid fears of property taxes growing faster than older Coloradans’ incomes, Colorado voters approved Referendum A in the year 2000. In doing so, they amended the state constitution to give older Coloradans a property tax break. The policy, which eventually became known as the senior homestead property tax exemption, first became available in 2002. A few years later, voters approved Referendum E, which extended the favorable tax treatment to veterans with disabilities. The goal, according to the proponents, was to allow more people to remain in their homes.

The exemption applies to older Coloradans and veterans with disabilities who have lived in their homes for at least 10 years. The law exempts 50 percent of the first $200,000 of the house’s value. For homes worth more than $200,000 in market value, the state reduces the value by $100,000 before calculating how much property tax is owed. For homes worth less than $200,000, only half of its market value is used to calculate property taxes. The exemption is not available for older Coloradans and veterans with disabilities who rent, or for who those who have owned their homes for less than 10 years. The 10-year rule also neglects to include people who may have lived in their home for more than 10 years but choose to move into a smaller home and have not yet lived there for the necessary 10-year period.

The exemption saved the average homeowner $575 and benefitted 245,802 older Coloradan households, along with 5,858 veterans with disabilities, in 2017. That adds up to a little more than 13 percent of all housing properties in Colorado. However, as with any tax expenditure, there is a tradeoff in revenue.

The revenue lost from the Senior Homestead Exemption doesn’t affect funding for local services because Colorado’s constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the revenue they lose by exempting these homesteads from property taxes. However, services and institutions funded primarily by state tax dollars – such as transportation, K-12 education, and higher education – are impacted.

When the state budget faces tightening due to economic downturns, lawmakers have the power to adjust the percentage of the value of each home that is exempt and can even reduce the exemption to zero (for all but veteran households) as they did in six of the nine years from 2003-2011.

Who receives the benefit of the homestead exemption?

Of the 484,613 households in Colorado with at least one older homeowner, just over half qualify for the current homestead exemption. 30 percent of households with at least one older Coloradan don’t own their homes, meaning they are unable to qualify. Another 19 percent are older homeowners who haven’t lived in their current residence for the 10 years needed to qualify for the current homestead exemption property tax break.

Additionally, the homestead exemption is more likely to benefit older whites than older Coloradans of other races: 60 percent of older white households qualify for the exemption, but only 40 percent of older black households and just 21 percent of older Latinx households qualify. Taken as a whole, even though people of color make up more than 25 percent of the total population above age 65, they make up just 13.6 percent of total homestead exemption qualifiers.

Older Latinx Coloradans are much less likely to own homes than older Coloradans who are white. A full 72 percent of older Latinx households don’t own homes compared to only 18 percent of older white households.  

Similar to the racial disparities described above, older Coloradans who qualify for the homestead tax exemption are less likely to be experiencing poverty than the total population over age 65. 32 percent of older households are above 500 percent of the federal poverty line and 35 percent of those eligible for the exemption are above 500 percent of FPL. 

Homestead exemption and TABOR rebate mechanisms

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) places a cap on how much revenue the state can collect in taxes and fees each year. If the state collects more than the revenue cap allows, it returns money to taxpayers in the form of rebates. Article X, Section 20 (1) of the Colorado Constitution allows excess revenue to be refunded using “any reasonable method.” Since 1992, legislators have created 21 mechanisms to refund revenue above the limit. Of those, eighteen have been repealed and three remain. One of the three remaining is the property tax exemption reimbursement mechanism.

Since FY2017-18, the first TABOR rebate mechanism is the senior homestead exemption, meaning the state reimburses local governments from the General Fund for the property tax lost from the exemption. The TABOR rebate money can cover a portion of the homestead exemption – it doesn’t have to fully fund the entire rebate mechanism like the temporary reduction in the income tax rate which only triggers on if the TABOR surplus is a certain amount. Having the first TABOR rebate mechanism as the homestead exemption affords more General Fund flexibility during TABOR rebate situations.

Note on word choice in this report

People who identify with a Latin American or Hispanic ethnicity may prefer to be identified in various ways including as Hispanic, Latino, Latina, Latinx, or with a more specific country of origin. In this report we use the gender-neutral term “Latinx” wherever possible. We also use “Hispanic” where appropriate, for instance in cases when a data source uses that term.

Methodology and data sources

Administrative data on homestead exemption recipients were provided by the property tax division of the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. These data have detailed information about the exemption value of each property that utilizes the homestead exemption but doesn’t provide demographic data on the recipients like age, race, income and years in current residence.

This is where U.S. Census data comes into play. Because census data has variables on income, property value, property taxes, age, and years living in current residence, we were able to slice the 2017 PUMS microdata into the survey respondents who qualified for Colorado’s current senior homestead exemption (i.e. those aged 65 years or older who have owned their home for at least 10 years). These are not necessarily the exact individuals who utilized the program, just those who are eligible.

The property tax variable was a categorical variable that was converted into a continuous variable by assuming the midpoint (e.g. if 3=property tax between $100 and $200, this was converted to $150).  Both the “housing” and “population” microdata were utilized because the property value and property tax variables are in the housing dataset while age is in the population dataset. We cat walked the “age” variable from the population microdata set using the serial number coded “serialno,” keeping only household records where “relp==0.”  Of these records, we calculated which individuals qualify for the current homestead exemption using the ACS variable “MV” which is “when moved into current residence.” This allowed us to see which households have been there for at least 10 years. Administrative records show 227,611 older Coloradans claimed the senior homestead exemption in 2017, while the 2017 Census data shows 249,537 are eligible (when multiplying the census weight variable times respondents). We determined the demographic data from the census data on those 249,537, which was 3,138 unique census records.