Denver District Judge Martin Egelhoff on Tuesday dismissed three of Douglas County’s four claims, saying he lacked “subject matter jurisdiction” on the first two, and that the county came up short on its third claim, in which it alleged the state board had violated Colorado’s open meetings law.

But a fourth claim remains alive. That claim seeks judicial review, or an appeal, of the state board’s December decision overturning Douglas County’s approval of a valuation decrease for property owners.

“The court dismissed three of the county’s four claims,” county attorney Jeff Garcia said in a statement Friday. “The county is evaluating possible grounds for appeal on the three dismissed claims. However, regardless of any appeal, the county is proceeding to litigate its remaining claim.”

The affluent suburban county filed its lawsuit against the State Board of Equalization in January, characterizing its unanimous decision to deny Douglas County’s proposed $4 billion reduction in residential home values as “arbitrary and capricious.” With reduced valuations, homeowners would have seen lower tax bills as various taxing entities’ mill levies, or tax rates, were applied.

The suit alleged that the state board singled out Douglas County for denial even as it approved other counties’ requests for even larger valuation reductions. The county also noted that its assessment adjustment had already received the blessing of state tax officials and a third-party auditor, only to be shot down by the equalization board.

Egelhoff’s ruling comes the same week the Colorado legislature held a special session to address ballooning property tax bills in the state. On Thursday, the legislature passed a property tax deal aimed at stopping a pair of initiatives on November’s ballot.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

If all goes as planned, the deal will calm the state’s multiyear tempest around property tax policy. The turbulence has included the repeal of a decades-old constitutional amendment that governed tax rates, the economic rollercoaster following the COVID pandemic and skyrocketing home values across metro Denver and much of the state.

“Fundamentally, the people of Colorado have had their concerns addressed: long-term relief, a reasonable cap (on tax growth) and over 4,000 entities funded by property taxes, including every school district, (will) have the stability that they need to plan and budget,” Gov. Jared Polis told The Denver Post in an interview Thursday. “ … With all the sort of chaos of the last few years, it’s been very hard on our fire districts, schools, library districts.”

House Bill 1001, which won final approval from the Senate shortly before he spoke, builds off a tax package signed in May that lowered assessment rates and capped how much property tax revenue collected by local governments and districts could grow. The new measure adds about $254 million in cuts to the $1.3 billion in reductions passed in the spring.

It’s expected to trim between $60 and $80 from the typical homeowner’s property tax bill in the 2025 tax year and about $179 the following year. Those are on top of the average $400 or so in savings this year from the prior package.

More importantly to local governments and legislative leaders, the deal passed Thursday will lead the conservative and business groups backing a pair of ballot measures that would’ve instituted stricter growth limits and deeper cuts — initiatives 50 and 108 — to withdraw them from the state’s November ballot. While the particular changes proposed by Initiative 108 would have saved the average homeowner more than $500 a year eventually, officials feared the financial toll on state and local government budgets.

Polis says he expects to sign the bill into law next week. Ahead of that, here is a look at several dynamics on display this week.

The power of power politics

Sen. Chris Hansen, a Denver Democrat and the property tax bill’s primary sponsor, opened the final debate Thursday by defending the process that sparked the special session. He sought to rebut recurring charges — including from his own colleagues — that the bill he was sponsoring was the result of a “backroom deal.”

“I think a dispassionate observer would come to the conclusion this was a public process,” he said, ticking off the public meetings at which the details of the plan were laid out. And he noted that legislative committees in recent days took public testimony.

The deal was negotiated outside public view by Hansen, other legislative leadership, the governor’s office and the supporters of the initiatives. While it’s true that its contours were publicly revealed earlier this month to the state’s Commission on Property Tax, those details had already been agreed upon.

Though support for the plan was bipartisan, lawmakers from both parties chafed at being called back to the Capitol essentially to ratify a deal they had no hand in crafting — and were largely unable to change. Some Republicans criticized the deal for not cutting taxes enough, while progressive Democrats said it exacerbated inequalities in the state and didn’t do enough to help lower-income property owners or renters.

Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Denver Democrat, spoke at length Wednesday about the need to defend the legislature’s role in governance and said that “no” votes would send a “signal” that “if you want to tell us what to do, you need to understand that not everybody’s down for that.” Most lawmakers in the chamber stood in support as she spoke.

But ultimately, the bill passed. Comfortably. A total of just 22 lawmakers (out of 100), including Bacon, voted against the bill during its journey through the Capitol.

Outside interests had real leverage

Several lawmakers this week derisively referred to Michael Fields, the president of the Advance Colorado Institute and the ballot initiatives’ chief proponent, as “governor.”

Those criticisms only grew when no one from Advance Colorado or its ally, Colorado Concern, a business-oriented advocacy group, testified in support of the bill in committees.

Polis, asked about the moniker, pointed to the almost 200,000 Coloradans who signed petitions placing the initiatives on the ballot, adding: “I think the legislature found a better way to address (property taxes) than risky and divisive ballot initiatives.”

Separately, Rep. Matt Soper, a Delta Republican, noted lawmakers’ aversion to feeling like a rubber stamp.

“We reasoned through that,” he said, “because we also have to be leaders, and we also have to stand up and say, ‘Personally, this is not what I would have wanted.’ … I feel comfortable in what we did because it was a true compromise.”

In a statement, Fields called the bill’s passage “a huge win for Colorado taxpayers,” who have faced property tax increases of 30% or more.

An end to the property tax wars?

Advance Colorado, as part of the deal, has promised not to run any other ballot initiatives around property taxes for at least six years — a period that stretches beyond Polis’ and many lawmakers’ remaining time in office — if the agreed-upon terms are met.

That deal was made in writing, though it has no statutory condition locking it in place more rigidly.

“We get permanency. We get stability here,” Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican involved in the negotiations, said Thursday. “So hopefully it does end the property tax wars, because we are getting to a permanent fix. In the past, we didn’t get the job done. It doesn’t mean that we failed; we just didn’t get it all the way done.”

Others weren’t so sure.

Rep. Judy Amabile, a Boulder Democrat who voted for the deal and said it was the right thing to do, said its passage would give legislators “a reprieve.” Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat who voted against it, said she’d “be shocked” if this latest bill actually brought an end to property tax battles at the legislature.

“We’ll be back here doing the same thing again,” she predicted.

A preview of debates to come

Some Democratic lawmakers introduced policy proposals to limit property tax relief or change how taxes are calculated — ideas that, though swiftly killed this week, may come back in January and open up a new front in the fight.

Fire chiefs from across the state also came to the Capitol to testify against expected cuts to their budgets resulting from the bill. They pulled back their full-scale lobbying only when they won promises from elected officials that they would prioritize finding more stable ways to fund fire districts in upcoming sessions.

“It’s concerning to me that there’s a need with our local governments,” said Sen. Chris Kolker, a Centennial Democrat. “How do we balance that need?”

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

The legislation now goes to Gov. Jared Polis for his signature — and is expected to prompt the conservative and business backers of the ballot measures to withdraw them.

The Senate approved the compromise bill, House Bill 1001, handily on a 30-4 vote on the special session’s fourth day. Polis celebrated the bill’s passage late Thursday morning, saying it would provide predictability, stability and relief to property owners — without the risks posed by the ballot measures.

“Fundamentally, the people of Colorado have had their concerns addressed: Long-term relief, a reasonable cap (on tax growth), and over 4,000 entities funded by property taxes, including every school district, (will) have the stability that they need to plan and budget,” Polis told The Denver Post in an interview. “ … With all the sort of chaos of the last few years, it’s been very hard on our fire districts, schools, library districts. I think we will all benefit from the stability.”

He expects to hold a signing ceremony next week, once some necessary legislative steps happen — and the ballot initiatives at the center of the fight, initiatives 50 and 108, are officially pulled from the ballot by Advance Colorado and Colorado Concern.

That has been a minor controversy, with Michael Fields, the chief proponent of the ballot measures, saying he would pull the initiatives once the bill was signed. Fields said Thursday he was working on the scheduling with the governor’s office.

“Today’s vote marks a huge win for Colorado taxpayers, who have been hit with 30 percent average property tax increases,” said Fields, the president of the Advance Colorado Institute, in a statement. “For two years, we have said the solution taxpayers need is to cut taxes significantly and then put a cap in place so Colorado can avoid this crisis in the future. This bill gets that job done.”

The bill will cut property taxes by about $254 million statewide and builds off an earlier $1.3 billion cut signed into law in May. One analysis, by the Colorado Fiscal Institute, a progressive think tank, estimates the average homeowner will see a modest additional property tax decrease of $62 in the next tax year, and about $179 in the 2026 tax year. That analysis also estimates that 62% of the relief in the bill will go to nonresidential property.

The earlier relief bill in the spring had significantly more impact. But the special session measure offered the ballot measure proponents an additional victory in exchange for their agreement to back off their initiatives — which, by CFI’s projections, eventually would have saved the average homeowner more than $500 a year, while taking a financial toll on state and local government budgets.

In the Senate’s Thursday vote, Sens. Mark Baisley, a Woodland Park Republican, and Democratic Sens. Nick Hinrichsen, Sonya Jaquez Lewis and Lisa Cutter opposed the legislation.

On Wednesday evening, before the Senate took an initial voice vote on the bill, Hinrichsen, from Pueblo, said “working class Coloradans have been a pawn of this process,” echoing concerns voiced by other Democrats in recent days about state officials’ negotiations with the initiatives’ supporters.

The ballot measure drove the special session. Legislative leaders, Fields and the governor’s office crafted the deal over the summer before unveiling it to the state’s property tax commission earlier this month. House Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, affirmed earlier this week that the proposal was “to play defense” against the measures.

It nonetheless led to ample criticism from Democrats who felt they were being called into a special session at the behest of special interests that were threatening to gut state and local budgets if the legislature didn’t pass laws to their liking.

At a pre-session caucus meeting open to the public, Rep. Steven Woodrow, a Denver Democrat, referred to the deal as being driven by “Gov. Fields and Mr. Polis.”

Asked about the criticism Thursday, Polis pointed to the nearly 200,000 signatures Fields had to gather to put the measures on the ballot to begin with. He praised the bipartisan work to give Coloradans additional relief.

“Hundreds of thousands of Coloradans put their name on petitions for property tax relief,” Polis said. “I think the legislature found a better way to address that than risky and divisive ballot initiatives.”

Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Chris Hansen, a Denver Democrat and architect of this bill and several other property tax measures in recent years, said the deal had been the culmination of nearly a decade of work to change the state’s property tax code. He repeated his objection to charges the special session was driven by a backroom deal.

Hansen also argued that passing the bill would end the yearslong standoff over property tax policy.

“We have ended a cycle of destructive ballot initiatives,” Hansen said.

In a statement, Dave Davia, the CEO of Colorado Concern, a business-oriented advocacy group, said: “This bill is critical relief for struggling homeowners and small businesses caught in a cost-of-living crisis in Colorado. It shows the state can responsibly cut property taxes and cap future tax increases while protecting the local services communities rely on.”

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Given the twists and turns in the state’s property tax debate, it’s easy to be confused about why lawmakers — who gave final approval to a breakthrough deal Thursday morning — have convened again, starting Monday. Here is a quick look at why they’ve been meeting, what they’re considering and the potential impact as they look to avoid two big measures on the November ballot.

► How we got here: Soaring property values, combined with the 2020 repeal of the Gallagher Amendment — which had stabilized residential property taxes — led to recent steep increases in property tax bills in many parts of Colorado. Lawmakers have been passing temporary relief for years, including during a November special session. They landed on a long-term policy last spring — but it didn’t placate outside conservative and business advocacy groups that are running ballot initiatives in November to force steeper cuts.

Gov. Jared Polis called a second special session this month to head off the measures as part of a deal with their backers, hoping to avert what state officials see as a financial shock for state and local governments if the initiatives pass.

► Ballot measures: Initiative 50 would cap property tax revenue growth and Initiative 108 would reduce assessment rates that determine how much of a property’s value is taxed. Estimates are that Initiative 108 would cut statewide property tax collections by more than $2 billion a year, with the state needing to either compensate local governments or let them deal with the lost revenue.

► Compromise bill: The ballot measures’ sponsors have agreed to pull them if lawmakers approve the new House Bill 1001. It would cut assessment rates more modestly for both commercial and residential properties, reducing statewide collections by about $254 million. That’s on top of $1.3 billion in cuts passed by lawmakers in the spring. (Update: The Senate took its final vote on HB-1001 Thursday, sending it to Polis for his signature.)

► Homeowner impact: How the scenarios compare is complicated. But under the law passed in the spring, the average savings for the owner of a typical $700,000 home was expected to be roughly $400, depending on local mill levies. The estimated additional savings from the special session bill are less than $100 for most homeowners, with varying projections putting the average in the $60-80 range.

If the ballot measures were to pass, Initiative 108 would have the most direct impact. Initially, it actually would increase taxes because the spring tax relief law would be invalidated. But in the 2025 tax year, 108 would reduce taxes by $539 for the average homeowner compared to current law, according to an analysis by the Colorado Fiscal Institute, a progressive think tank.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Medicaid rolls were in flux over the last year as states started removing people for the first time since early 2020. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, states couldn’t kick people off Medicaid, meaning they spent much of the last year determining who still qualifies.

For the fiscal year that ended in June, the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing had to attempt to project not only how many people would lose Medicaid coverage, either because they weren’t eligible or didn’t return the paperwork, but also how much the remaining members’ medical care would cost.

The forecast was close in terms of the number of people who would keep their coverage, but slightly underestimated how much care they would need, department spokesman Marc Williams said. The department went over budget by 1.16%, or about $123.8 million, in the 2023-24 fiscal year, he said.

Most of the extra spending was on groups traditionally eligible for Medicaid, Williams said. The federal government pays half of the cost of care to those groups, which include people with very low incomes and those with disabilities. Federal funds cover about 90% of the cost of the “expansion” population, which includes adults earning up to 138% of the poverty line.

“This was very difficult to forecast because of so many moving parts,” he said.

Medicaid covers about 1.26 million people in Colorado and has a $16 billion budget, with about $5 billion of that coming from the state’s general fund.

The department has the authority to keep paying Medicaid claims when they exceed its budget, Williams said. When lawmakers return in January, the state legislature will vote on whether to approve the overspending amount, he said. If they vote not to do so — an unlikely scenario — the department would have to take the amount it overspent out of the current year’s budget.

Rep. Shannon Bird, a Westminster Democrat and chair of the Joint Budget Committee, said this year’s budget could be tight, but lawmakers will have to make adjustments to provide needed services.

Lawmakers will have a better sense of the state’s financial situation in September, when they receive their next quarterly forecast, she said.

“It’s not ideal,” she said of the budget overrun.

Denver Post reporter Seth Klamann contributed to this report.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get health news sent straight to your inbox.

Just after noon, the Colorado House passed the measure, which would provide homeowners and other property owners with modest additional tax relief, on a 45-18 vote, as 15 of the majority Democrats voted against it. By mid-afternoon, the bill cleared its first hurdle in the Senate with a unanimous vote out of committee, and it passed a first Senate voice vote shortly before 6:45 p.m.

That sets the bill up for final passage — and a trip to Gov. Jared Polis’ desk — Thursday.

House Bill 1001 builds off a property tax cut signed into law in May. If passed, it would reduce property tax collections statewide by about $254 million — on top of the $1.3 billion cut passed in the spring — by further trimming the state’s assessment rate. That rate, along with local mill levies, is used to establish how much in taxes the property owner owes.

The change would save the average homeowner about $62 for the upcoming property tax year and $179 the following year, according to an analysis by the Colorado Fiscal Institute; lawmakers’ estimates for the initial impact have been slightly higher. The bill also would expand the nonresidential properties that qualify for commercial rates set in the spring measure, passed as Senate Bill 233.

The progressive think tank’s analysis found that 62% of the tax cuts proposed in the special session bill would go to nonresidential property owners. The analysis did not have an average estimated savings for that class of property.

But the true stakes of the special session, backers of the deal say, is that it will result in Advance Colorado, a conservative advocacy group, yanking initiatives 50 and 108 from the November ballot. If passed by voters, those measures would force deeper cuts to the assessment rates, worth potentially billions of dollars, and set stricter caps on how much property tax revenue local governments can keep.

“For the yeses and the noes, I believe that passing this bill and getting those initiatives off the ballot is the responsible, most important thing that we can do today — that we can do for the future of this state,” House Speaker Julie McCluskie told her colleagues shortly before the vote.

The House also passed a proposed ballot measure Wednesday that would have required local voters to approve of any future property tax changes instituted by a statewide vote. Democrats had embraced that bill as a way to help prevent new statewide property tax wars — like the one that sparked the special session.

But Republicans opposed it, and that opposition ultimately sank the measure later in the day in the Senate, where at least one Republican needed to back the bill. Sen. Chris Hansen, a Denver Democrat who sponsored the measure, voluntarily pulled the bill during a committee meeting.

That leaves lawmakers with a written promise from Advance Colorado and its allies, including the business-oriented Colorado Concern, not to pursue similar property tax measures for at least six years should the property tax bill pass as written.

Some lawmakers had bristled at being pulled into a special session to codify a deal already agreed to by the governor, legislative leaders and outside groups. That frustration prompted a series of speeches from House Democrats decrying the process and lamenting that they were being forced to pick between cutting local services now or risking deeper cuts if the ballot measures pass.

“I don’t work for somebody who is not on this floor. Or even, dare I say, behind the glass,” said Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Denver Democrat and the House’s assistant majority leader. She was referring to the governor’s office, located a floor below, and to lobbyists who watch the House work through glass windows.

She emphasized: “It is our job to make law.”

As Bacon spoke, a large number of lawmakers from both parties stood at their desks, a sign of solidarity in the chamber.

Rep. Stephanie Luck, a Penrose Republican, criticized the process that sparked the special session. Rep. Tim Hernández, a Denver Democrat who lost his primary in June, spoke at length about his own upbringing — and the property his family wasn’t ever able to afford — and contrasted it with the forces that he said compelled lawmakers back to the Capitol this week.

“There are a lot of brilliant poor kids who grow up in this state, whose families don’t get the opportunity to own property, who don’t get the opportunity to come here and be heard in this legislature — poor folks, oppressed folks who don’t get a special session,” Hernández said.

After lengthy testimony from Democrats and Republicans alike, McCluskie and Minority Leader Rose Pugliese — a Republican who co-sponsored the bill with the speaker — both acknowledged concerns from within their own causes.

But they asked their members to support the deal anyway.

“Is it a move to play defense right now? You bet it is. We provide assurances to our communities. We provide assurances to our hardworking families that we’re not going to take $630 million from our schools,” McCluskie said, referring to one projected impact of Initiative 108’s passage.

The bill passed the House comfortably, though with progressive Democrats casting the majority of the no votes.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

This story will be updated throughout the day.

Updated at 6:51 p.m.: The full Senate gave initial approval to the property tax deal Wednesday night, clearing the way for the bill to pass on a final vote Thursday and then head to Gov. Jared Polis for signature.

Much of the Senate debate was dominated by Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, a Pueblo Democrat, who spoke for more than an hour against the negotiations and deal that sparked the special session. He said the process had taken a proverbial “sledgehammer” to the legislature as a co-equal branch of government.

Updated at 4:40 p.m.: The legislature’s new proposed referred ballot measure is officially dead. Sen. Chris Hansen, a Denver Democrat and the bill’s Senate sponsor, asked the Senate Finance Committee to table the bill, which it later did.

For posterity: The measure, if approved by the state’s voters, would’ve required local approval of any future property tax changes instituted by a statewide vote. Democrats had backed it as a way to limit future property tax wars (like the one that brought them to the Capitol this week), but Republicans had opposed it as limiting the ballot and initiative process. It faced likely fatal headwinds in the Senate, where Democrats are one vote shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass the resolution and send it to voters.

Earlier in the afternoon, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the primary property tax bill, sending it to the full Senate for a first voice vote. That debate was set to start early this evening.

Updated at 1:25 p.m.: After passing the primary property tax bill, the House swiftly passed a more minor measure that makes permanent a property tax exemption for agricultural equipment. Representatives then passed — by the narrowest possible margin — a proposed ballot measure that would require local voter approval of any future statewide ballot initiatives that affect property taxes.

Because that measure would go on the ballot, it required two-thirds support in the House. Democrats hold a supermajority in the chamber, with two more seats than the 44-vote threshold needed to advance the measure.

Republicans opposed it, and one Democrat — Rep. Chris deGruy Kennedy — is absent. Another Democrat, Rep. Marc Snyder, voted against it.

That meant that every remaining House Democrat had to back the bill, which several had vocally supported as a way to prevent future property tax ballot wars. With voting winding down, three Democrats still hadn’t voted. Two eventually voted yes, leaving the decisive vote to Rep. Elisabeth Epps.

Epps, who in June lost her primary and will leave the legislature in January, at first pushed the “no” button, which would’ve killed the bill. House Speaker Julie McCluskie started to close voting, and then Epps quickly changed her vote — ensuring the bill passed, 44-19.

It now moves to the Senate, where the ballot referral faces an even tougher road with Democrats just short of a supermajority in that chamber. Senate Republicans have criticized the measure, and it would need at least one of them to support it.

Updated at 1:03 p.m.: The bill at the center of the Colorado legislature’s special session cleared the House shortly after noon on a 45-18 vote, setting it up for sprint through the Senate.

House Bill 1001 would deliver another reduction in the state’s assessment rate, adding about $254 million to the $1.3 billion cut to statewide property tax collections that Gov. Jared Polis signed into law in May. The assessment rate, along with local mill levies, affects how much money property owners owe in taxes.

If HB-1001 becomes law, most homeowners would see an additional cut of less than $100, compared to the roughly $400 savings for the owner of a typical $700,000 home under the spring legislation.

More important to legislative leaders and Polis, the new bill is the keystone to a deal to pull initiatives 50 and 108 from November’s ballot — that is, if the bill that passes aligns with the framework negotiated by the elected officials and the conservative advocacy group Advance Colorado and the business-oriented group Colorado Concern.

It went through relatively minor changes in the House of Representatives, where Democrats hold a supermajority, as separate bills pushing progressive priorities died.

Progressive Democrats cast the majority of the no votes following a series of speeches criticizing the process. But bipartisan support ensured a majority.

“This is a deal that was drafted and stakeholded in the backroom by people who will never have to answer for the outcomes,” said state Rep. Stephanie Vigil, a Colorado Springs Democrat. The groups that negotiated the deal were afforded access that she and other lawmakers “could never hope to get,” she said.

House Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat and sponsor of the bill, acknowledged that the special session and the bill were intended “to protect Colorado from the devastating ballot initiatives,” while also defending the outreach effort and the transparency of the legislative process.

“Is this a move to play defense right now? You bet it is,” McCluskie said. But she noted it was also to assure communities and stakeholders that the legislation would provide assurances on school funding and local government services.

The Senate will take the bill up this afternoon. If lawmakers want to wrap up the special session by Thursday, the bill will need to clear a committee hearing, which will be the only opportunity for public comment, and an initial voice vote today.

Any changes in that chamber will need to be reconciled with the House — a potential snag backers of the compromise hope to avoid.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

This story will be updated throughout the day.

Updated at 3:50 p.m.: The House has given initial approval to the full property tax deal. Though several House Democrats expressed frustration with the process that led to the backroom deal and the special session to ratify it, the vote ultimately came with a comfortable margin, with most Democrats voting to advance it and two other measures provisionally approved today.

The measure now needs a final full vote in the House on Wednesday. That vote will be recorded and give a better sense of the measure’s full support — or opposition — in the House. The bill passed today on a voice vote.

Should it clear Wednesday’s hurdle — and bills rarely die on the final vote — it will then move to the Senate. If lawmakers want to finish the special session by Thursday, the Senate will need to move the property tax bill through a committee and then an initial vote (something that took the House two days) before the end of the day Wednesday.

The House is also sending the Senate two other bills: one is a minor measure to make permanent an existing property tax exemption for agricultural equipment. The second is a more controversial ballot referral that would require local voters’ approval of statewide property tax ballot changes for them to apply locally. Republicans have criticized the measure, and if it’s going to pass the Senate, it needs at least one Republican to support it.

Updated at 11:42 a.m.: And just like that, the proposed ballot initiative has passed its first vote in the House. The chamber is now moving on to debate the primary property tax deal, which is the main event of the day and week.

Updated at 11:37 a.m.: The House is debating Rep. Mike Weissman’s proposed ballot initiative that, if passed, would require local voters’ approval of statewide property tax ballot changes. Republicans have already planted a flag firmly against it, and House Republicans have been talking at length against the measure throughout the latter part of this morning.

That’s involved running amendments to eat up time, including one that managed to touch on another political nerve: the reintroduction of wolves. Republican Rep. Ken DeGraaf joked — or not — about being given a sticky note to talk for another hour.

Earlier today, the House passed a bipartisan bill to make permanent a property tax exemption for agricultural equipment. The primary property tax bill, which also has bipartisan sponsorship (and opposition), waits in the wings.

Updated at 11:00 a.m.: The last of progressive lawmakers’ special session bills died Monday night, when a House committee voted to kill a measure that would have targeted some property tax relief only for homeowners’ primary residences — excluding Coloradans’ second or subsequent homes, including rental properties.

“This bill is about making sure that we’re targeting additional tax relief to people who actually need it — people who are trying to stay in their homes,” said Rep. Javier Mabrey, the Democrat who backed the bill with fellow Denver Rep. Steven Woodrow.

The measure, House Bill 1002, would’ve provided assessment rate cuts, which affect tax bill calculations, to all residential properties. But it would have limited value reductions only for primary residences. The bill was a proposed ballot referral, meaning it needed support from two-thirds of legislators — a tall order in the Senate, at least, where Democrats lack a supermajority — before going to the state’s voters this fall.

The bill died 3-7, with three House Democrats joining the House Appropriations Committee’s Republicans in voting against it.

The debate on the bill came shortly after the Appropriations Committee approved the primary property tax deal. It felt like a proxy war for the broader debate of the special session and the circumstances that brought lawmakers back to the Capitol.

When Rep. Judy Amabile, a Boulder Democrat, questioned the rushed nature of the bill, Woodrow cheerfully replied that the entire special session had been rushed.

“It’s true we didn’t have a spreadsheet we could share with people three weeks ago telling them it was a framework — and, voila! It turns into a bill that can’t be negotiated,” he said, referring to the primary property tax bill that he had harshly criticized.

But Mabrey and Woodrow’s proposal isn’t dead yet: The House returned to work Tuesday morning and was set to debate the main property tax bill on the floor, where progressives are preparing amendments to pursue their policy goals. Lawmakers also were set to consider a proposed ballot measure that would require local voter approval of statewide property tax ballot decisions and a technical bill to make permanent an agricultural equipment property tax exemption.

The House first passed the agricultural bill and then moved on to the ballot measure, setting the property tax bill for last.

Mabrey is preparing an amendment to reintroduce his bill by amending it into the primary property tax bill. That likely will reignite the broader debate about the intent of the special session and who’s benefiting from the property tax deal.

The tenor — and length — of Tuesday’s proceedings will likely swing on how much disagreement there is among House Democrats, many of whom support the deal.

House Republicans, some of whom have pushed for deeper property tax cuts, are also not averse to making their opinions known at length. Several have already criticized the proposed ballot measure.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Legislative leaders and the governor are pushing House Bill 1001, a $248 million cut to property taxes statewide that, most importantly to them, could result in initiatives 50 and 108 being yanked from November’s ballot. If passed by voters, those measures, which are backed by conservative and business-oriented groups, would force even deeper cuts to the state’s assessment rate — which directly affects local property tax bills — and put in place a strict cap on how much tax revenue can increase each year.

The bill passed its first hurdle late Monday afternoon, winning approval 8-3 in the House Appropriations Committee, and progressed to a full debate on the House floor.

But that debate won’t happen until Tuesday, drawing out the special session by at least one more day beyond the three-day minimum for a bill to become law. That means lawmakers now will meet at least through Thursday.

As financial projections were refined, the potential impact came into clearer view Monday. Sen. Chris Hansen, a Denver Democrat, said an average homeowner in an area with typical mill levies would see a reduction in the ballpark of $77 a year — though the impact would vary with local circumstances. Those reductions also may only partially offset tax growth in some areas.

The measure is being sponsored by House Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, and House Minority Leader Rose Pugliese, a Colorado Springs Republican.

A series of local governments asked the committee to amend the bill, but none more consistently than local fire districts. Firefighters from several districts bristled at the proposal of deeper cuts to property tax rates as they already struggle to keep up with higher day-to-day costs and the ever-increasing danger of longer fire seasons.

Lawmakers on the committee, however, highlighted the choice they saw between the cuts in the bill and the risk of “draconian” cuts from the initiatives.

Most lawmakers and people testifying agreed the risk was too great.

“We are faced with the choice of responsible governance, and I really believe that we have to pass a bill to make sure that these terrible initiatives are taken down, while providing additional responsible relief that ensures that critical services are protected,” said Rep. Kyle Brown, a Louisville Democrat, before voting to advance the measure.

The firefighters said they preferred to fight the ballot measures during the fall campaign season than face more death by a dozen legislative cuts.

If fire departments can’t keep their doors open, Elizabeth Fire Department Chief T.J. Steck warned in an interview, it will also jeopardize homeowners’ ability to secure insurance, much less afford it.

“I would ask that you vote no (on this bill), simply because we would have a chance to survive,” he said.

The groups backing the initiatives, including Advance Colorado and Colorado Concern, reiterated their pledge to pull the measures in a letter to the legislature Monday morning — if the legislation, as agreed upon, is signed by Gov. Jared Polis.

They struck the deal with legislative leaders and the governor in the weeks leading up to the special session. It includes specific assessment rate figures, caps on revenue increases and language on how local governments would need to ask their voters to override the caps.

The opacity of the deal — what its edges are and a feeling among some lawmakers that they’ve been called back simply to rubber-stamp it — has been a simmering point of tension among the Democratic majority. That tension came to the fore during the committee meeting.

“That is part of the frustration that we have, not only with fire districts but many of our stakeholders,” said Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, a Glenwood Springs Democrat and one of two Democratic no votes. “We are just supposed to say yes to a deal we have not been part of and have not had an opportunity to give input.”

State Rep. Rick Taggart, a Grand Junction Republican who voted in favor of the bill, pushed back on characterizations that this proposal would cut revenue. Rocketing property valuations in many parts of the state have led to higher tax revenues for years, he said.

Rep. Scott Bottoms, a Colorado Springs Republican, was the lone GOP no vote on the committee. He argued Coloradans deserved to vote on the initiatives, which he called “the most amazing” property tax proposals he’d seen.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

That’s exactly the situation that far-right Colorado politicians and dark money groups have found themselves in with Initiative 108. If passed, Initiative 108 would devastate rural and working-class urban communities and families throughout the state, while giving exorbitant tax cuts to the wealthiest Coloradans.

The multi-millionaire proponents of Initiative 108, and their legislative cheerleaders, have now demanded a special session of the legislature — which started Monday — to enact a deal brokered through backroom negotiations, in exchange for removing 108 from the ballot. They’ve realized that 108 is extremely detrimental to most of the communities that they represent. They’ve caught the car and are now looking to save face with a deal that would let them and their communities walk away unscathed, with a chunk of the bumper to show for their efforts.

Not a dime of property tax revenue is collected by the state of Colorado. If Initiative 108 passes, residents of Parker, for example, will vote on whether to reduce the local taxes of residents in Steamboat Springs.

Colorado residents have been promised that if they vote “yes” on 108, their local governments will not be harmed because they will be reimbursed from the state general fund. This means that our available General Fund balance of $10.2 Billion would take a $2.25 Billion hit, requiring a cut of more than 20% to state programs and services.

As the state entities that receive the most state funding, Health Care Policy and Financing, Higher Education, Human Services, and Corrections would absorb 75% of the cuts. These agencies disproportionately serve rural and urban working-class Coloradans. If 108 were to pass it is entirely likely that the closure of one of Colorado’s Community Colleges will be on the table to meet the fiscal obligations it imposes.

It’s important to note that low- to moderate-income communities would be most harmed by spending cuts and would also get disproportionately little of the savings generated by the tax cuts. If passed, the tax savings of the median homeowner in Logan County, where the service cuts would likely be devastating, is around $260. For the median homeowner in Eagle County, where the state service cuts are likely to be comparatively small, the annual savings will be closer to $830.

While our property taxes are third lowest in the nation, a series of events (including a steep increase in property values) led to a rapid, and we recognize a painful, increase in property tax. So, throughout the 2024 session, legislators from across the spectrum worked together to deliver responsible tax relief to Coloradans. We accomplished that.

In fact, the Colorado Senate GOP’s website proudly boasts “$1.75 billion in tax relief delivered for Colorado in 2024.” Three-quarters of that relief came in the form of Senate Bill 233, our responsible alternative to Initiative 108. That bill passed the legislature 90-8, with every member of GOP leadership voting for it. At the time, Senate GOP Joint Budget Committee Member Barbara Kirkmeyer declared that to go further would “cripple the state’s budget.”

Now, she and other GOP lawmakers are supporting our return to the Gold Dome for a special session to vote on a deal that we’ve not been privy to. We are speaking for a group of legislators who care deeply about their communities and want to provide economic relief that impacts the lower and middle class while ensuring local community revenue reductions are minimized, and a process that is transparent and inclusive.

We are not rubber stamps, and we are being asked to blindly trust a deeply flawed process. We believe that the voters of Colorado are smart enough to recognize that 50 and 108 were huge giveaways to the wealthiest Coloradans at the expense of our schools, fire departments, and other essential services. From the little we know of the parameters around a proposed deal, while not nearly as harmful as 108, it would still be extremely damaging to working families in Colorado.

Dozens of wildfires are currently burning throughout the state. Only taking into consideration SB24-233, the loss to fire districts over the next five years will be $430 million. At a time when wildfires are increasing in frequency and intensity, our firefighters are already operating at a deficit, lacking proper equipment, and struggling with workforce issues.

We do not believe further cuts, which would return minor benefits for homeowners, would be worth the very real pain they would inflict on our state budget and critical community services.  Rather than demanding to keep the bumper, the GOP and their multi-millionaire partners attempting to extort the state legislature (and our communities by proxy) should let go of the car, honor the agreements that were already made in public hearings, and remove their support for this disastrous initiative – Initiative 108.

The legislature must take advantage of this forced negotiation to ensure that the harm to community services is minimal – if not zero –while also ensuring economic relief is given to those most in need. This special session is our chance to demonstrate what an equitable property tax solution looks like.

Lorena Garcia is a member of the Colorado House representing District 35 in Adams and Jefferson counties. Nick Hinrichsen is a member of the Colorado Senate representing District 3 in Pueblo County. Both are Democrats.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.