Proposition 117: Voter Approval Requirement for Creation of Certain Fee-Based Enterprises

It's important to stop and carefully consider a ballot proposition when both the opponents and the proponents agree that the ballot language is confusing.

Thanks to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), in order for the legislature to make changes to taxes, it cannot do so without asking for voter approval. It has been called an anti-tax tool and the Bell Policy center, which seeks to "ensure economic mobility for every Coloradan," has pushed for TABOR reforms for years.

As a result, since it's difficult for the government to raise taxes--given that many tax proposals are struck down by voters--the state has turned to enterprise funds to help aid in public funding. Essentially, an enterprise fund is a fee assessed in exchange for goods and services so that the government can support itself.

For example, the Petroleum Tank Storage Fund is a fee exclusively for individuals and businesses with properties that have a petroleum storage tank. Few Coloradans actually pay this fee and therefore, it has a limited impact on the majority of Coloradans.

It's exactly for this reason that opponents argue against Prop 117. Bell Policy Center's president Scott Wasserman says that it's not good government to constantly have to put overly specific and technical fiscal policy questions on the ballot.

But Jesse Mallory, the state director of Americans for Prosperity Colorado, argues that voters should have the opportunity to weigh in on these fees as well as taxes. "It will benefit taxpayers by eliminating the legislature's ability to call something a fee so they don't have to get voter permission."

On the other hand, opponents like Peter Hinga, who is the campaign manager for Protect Colorado's Recovery, states, "Enterprise funds are government owned businesses housed in state agencies and run by state employees. There are strict rules that govern these funds already."

Going back to both groups' point about the language being confusing, Hinga points out that it's unclear which funds will be affected.

"There's great uncertainty around what constitutes a 'new' enterprise fund. The Hospital Provider Fee is an enterprise fund currently in operation, but it has not met the '$100 million in the first five fiscal years' mark laid out in Proposition 117," said Hinga. "Does that mean it will be a new enterprise fund once it meets the five year mark? Thereby making it subject to a vote in 2022? Or, is it grandfathered in?"

Mallory did not identify what in the ballot language was confusing, nor did he raise questions like Hinga. He did say that his group is "working every day to inform voters about why they should vote YES," but in looking through Americans for Prosperity's site, it's difficult to find any specific information about Prop 117.

Instead, Mallory simply reiterated that "It [Prop 117] simply says elected officials must respect the state constitution and ask voter permission to raise fees excessively on Colorado families and businesses."

But opponents say that this is a disingenuous argument given the complications around the current and proposed tax codes, and say instead that these funds are "set up as acute solutions to acute problems." Governments at the local, county and state levels all are tasked with finding sustainable funding for their communities' needs. In some cases, these enterprise funds are the only way that these governments can find the funding to provide those services.

The secretary of state's office puts out lists of groups both in favor and in opposition to various ballot measures. More information can be found here

For more information about the proponents, Americans for Prosperity, visit: americansforprosperity.org/state/colorado

For more information about the opponents, Protect Colorado's Recovery, visit: no116and117.com