The bill was introduced in the U.S. House late last month. If passed, it would make it easier for states to cover treatment for drug abuse, like inpatient hospital stays or residential treatment, via Medicaid, in part by ensuring that the federal government will cover 90% of new costs in the first five years after a state adopts the program.

Under current law, Medicaid doesn’t cover drug treatment. States can request coverage via a waiver system, as Colorado did after Pettersen, then a state House member, passed a bill requiring it do so in 2018. Several states have pursued waivers, but many haven’t. The waiver process can be cumbersome and time-consuming, presenting a decisive — or convenient — barrier for states who may already be leery about drug treatment, said Rob Valuck, the head of the Colorado Consortium for Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention.

The bill would remove that barrier by allowing states to begin offering Medicaid-covered treatment without seeking a waiver.

Pettersen, a first-term Democrat running for reelection in the 7th Congressional District west of Denver and Colorado Springs, unveiled the measure in Denver on Thursday with her mother, who is in long-term recovery from heroin use. Valuck and Attorney General Phil Weiser were also among the attendees.

“My mom is an example of what’s possible when people struggling with substance use disorder have access to the resources and support they need, but I know she was one of the lucky ones,” Pettersen said in a statement. “Far too many people are left without care because of the stigma associated with addiction and the lack of funding and priorities at every level of government.”

Pettersen previewed the bill to The Denver Post last summer as she began working to take substance use policies passed in Colorado — ranging from Medicaid coverage to overdose antidote access — to the federal level. Her efforts come amid a national overdose crisis fueled by the synthetic opioid fentanyl. More than 107,000 Americans fatally overdosed last year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That represented a 3% decline from 2022’s death toll, though it is still high enough to register as one of the worst overdose years in American history.

Her public unveiling of the bill — at a Denver facility where her mother once received treatment — came a few days after Aug. 31’s Overdose Awareness Day. Fatal overdoses increased slightly in Colorado last year but hit a record high in Denver, according to the city’s overdose dashboard. Denver activists held an Overdose Grief Day on Aug. 31 to call for additional action from city officials to address the crisis.

Valuck said it would be difficult to pass substantive drug policy through this current Congress — especially given that Democrats, like Pettersen, are in the minority in the House. But he argued that it was “unconscionably bizarre” for Medicaid not to cover drug abuse treatment, and he said that allowing it to do so will save states money in criminal justice and health care costs.

“Those are the two ways people end up getting care if you don’t pay for treatment: They go to the emergency room or they go to jail,” he said. “That’s the de facto treatment system if you don’t cover it under Medicaid. ”

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

The suit, which names Gov. Jared Polis and state Treasurer Dave Young, was filed in Denver District Court by several mostly rural counties on the Western Slope, plus metro Denver’s Douglas County. They allege that a bill passed by the legislature earlier this year would “substantially deplete” — if not zero out — a portion of severance tax revenue that’s intended “to offset the impact” of oil and gas extraction.

That bill, the bipartisan House Bill 1413, took $25 million in severance tax funds and directed them to the general fund, which is the state’s primary spending account. It was one of a handful of transfers that aided in balancing the budget.

The counties — Mesa, Douglas, Garfield, Moffat, Montezuma, Montrose and Rio Blanco — are asking a Denver judge to rule that the transfer was illegal and to prohibit transfers in the future that would “deplete” the fund.

At a county commission meeting at the end of August, Mesa commissioners accused the legislature of taking the money to balance the state budget, and Commissioner Janet Rowland said it was an “insult to injury.”

The counties said in their suit that they have used the money for transportation, public health, and senior and animal welfare services. The distributions made up between 0.6% (in Montrose County’s case) and 3.65% (for Montezuma County) of the their 2023 expenditures.

“As a result of depletion of the (fund), the (counties) and their communities will be deprived of critical funds on which they have come to heavily rely, and on which they intended to rely moving forward for established and new service programs alike,” the counties’ lawyers wrote in the suit.

According to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs website, $25 million is available for local governments in the Energy/Mineral Impact Assistance Fund Grant program; that’s the account from which legislative staff recommended lawmakers transfer the money. Applications for those grants opened July 1.

A spokeswoman for the department was unable to provide comment Thursday.

The legislature has moved severance tax dollars into its general fund before, as Republican lawmakers who opposed the transfer noted during floor debates in the spring. Staff for the Joint Budget Committee, a group of six lawmakers tasked with creating the state’s budget and guiding fiscal policy, recommended the $25 million transfer in March.

Spokespeople for Polis and Young did not provide comment Thursday. A message left for Rep. Shannon Bird, who chairs the powerful Joint Budget Committee and co-sponsored the bill, was not returned.

Rep. Rick Taggart, a Grand Junction Republican who also co-sponsored the bill, said he needed to double-check the details of the various funds’ background and details before commenting specifically.

But he said the transfers were necessary.

“None of us on the (Joint Budget Committee) were happy about that, at all,” he said. “It’s just — we got some surprises thrown at us at the very end of the session, and we had to balance that budget.”

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

The legislature passed House Bill 1001 last week during its second property tax-focused special session in the past year. Polis called lawmakers back to the Capitol in mid-August to ratify the deal his office and legislative leaders had struck with Advance Colorado, a conservative advocacy group, and Colorado Concern, a business organization backing Advance Colorado’s ballot measures.

The deal called for additional property tax cuts, on top of larger reductions passed in May, in exchange for Advance Colorado removing two ballot measures that would have cut taxes more steeply and capped property tax growth more stringently for local governments and districts.

“With this final piece, I think we have the predictability and stability we need to save homeowners money and do budgeting for schools and make sure we do not have the resurgence of the negative factor,” Polis said. He was referring to the budgeting mechanism that had chronically underfunded state schools for years, but which state officials ended in this fiscal year’s budget.

Polis had previously said he would not sign the bill into law until the two ballot measures — initiatives 50 and 108 — were formally pulled from the ballot. The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office confirmed Wednesday morning that both had been withdrawn.

The deal also included a promise from Advance Colorado not to pursue additional property tax-cutting measures for at least six years. No statutory requirement underpins that promise, but House Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat and one of HB-1001’s sponsors, expressed hope during Wednesday’s ceremony that “this is the end of our conversations about property tax for at least the next six years.”

“It is unfortunate that we had to play defense — that we had to come forward and provide yet additional relief — because wealthy interests in this state continue to bring forward ballot measures that would ultimately undermine the stability of our communities,” imperil school funding and put budgets for local services like fire departments at risk, she said. Those risks elevated frustrations that had been prominent within her caucus last month.

Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican and another sponsor, called the legislation passed this year “the largest property tax cut in Colorado’s history,” though the impact of the special session bill is smaller than a companion bill passed by lawmakers in the spring.

“When you combine what’s going to happen with 2025, with 2026, it’s nearly $2.4 billion,” she said.

The bill signed Wednesday initially adds roughly $254 million in additional cuts to the $1.3 billion worth of reductions approved in May. The bulk of the latest cuts will benefit commercial property, according to an analysis by the Colorado Fiscal Institute, a progressive think tank.

Polis said those reductions should benefit commercial tenants — who, he said, typically foot the bill for increased property taxes.

For homeowners, the measure is expected to clip between $60 and $80 from a typical property tax bill in the 2025 tax year, plus roughly $179 the following year. That’s on top of an average $400 in savings from the measure passed in May.

For supporters in the legislature, the compromise meant accepting relatively modest additional tax relief in exchange for neutralizing two ballot measures that Democrats said would have “catastrophic” and “draconian” effects on state and local budgets.

“I believe today marks the culmination of at least six years’ worth of work,” said Sen. Chris Hansen, a Denver Democrat and another architect of the deal. He was referring to the work undertaken to repeal the Gallagher Amendment in 2020 — and then grapple with the loss of that law’s tax-stabilizing protection for homeowners.

Twenty-two legislators out of 100 voted against the deal during its journey through the Capitol last week. Most were Democrats frustrated that it was negotiated behind closed doors with deep-pocketed conservative and business groups.

Critics repeatedly likened the situation to negotiating with hostage-takers, and some Democrats spent last week referring to Advance Colorado’s president, Michael Fields, as “Gov. Fields.”

Several legislators told The Denver Post last week that they doubted the armistice would last. That feeling was in part rooted in a lack of trust between the initiatives’ backers and legislators, many of whom thought that the measure passed in May was already a compromise.

On Wednesday, the deal’s architects struck a more optimistic tune. Polis said he hoped the deal would provide property tax stability for a generation, and his office — in its release announcing the bill-signing — heralded that “the property tax wars are over.”

Kirkmeyer thanked Advance Colorado and the initiatives’ proponents and said that though there had been “trust issues,” the proponents had kept their word.

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

Eric Joss, the Libertarian nominee in the 8th Congressional District, announced the armistice with Republican state Rep. Gabe Evans during a press conference Tuesday night. Evans, a freshman legislator from Fort Lupton, signed a “pledge of liberty” to secure Joss’ support.

The pledge includes promises to oppose “military adventurism” while supporting a peaceful end to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and “fundamental reform” of the U.S. Department of Education, among other issues.

Evans said he signed the pledge after some changes were made, including removing language calling for the abolishment of U.S. intelligence services.

“Eric and I are united in our determination to rein in the size, scope, cost and corruption of government,” Evans said in a statement. “Beating big government starts with defeating” U.S. Rep. Yadira Caraveo, the Democrat who currently holds the seat.

Last summer, the state Libertarian Party agreed not to run candidates against Republicans in contested races if the state Republican Party backed “liberty-leaning candidates.” That deal came after the previous race for the 8th Congressional District turned on a tight margin: Caraveo won the seat in 2022, beating Republican state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer by 1,632 votes in the first election to represent the newly created district.

In that race, the Libertarian candidate, Richard Ward, garnered more than 9,200 votes.

On Tuesday night, Joss criticized Caraveo as a “rubber-stamp” on President Joe Biden’s agenda. During her nearly two years in Congress, Caraveo has pursued a moderate path and is one of the most moderate House members, according to the accountability and transparency website GovTrack.

In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Caraveo campaign manager Mary Alice Blackstock accused Evans and Joss of making a “backroom deal.” Blackstock said Caraveo’s record “speaks for itself. Come November, voters will decide between a Congresswoman who has delivered real results and a political opportunist siding with the extremes.”

Colorado Secretary of State spokesman Jack Todd said Joss had not formally pulled his name from the ballot as of Wednesday morning. The deadline to do so is Friday.

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

Calvarese, a former speechwriter and labor activist, repeatedly attacked Boebert’s congressional record, including criticizing the Republican for voting against a larger bill that included provisions allowing the federal government to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. She defended President Joe Biden’s marquee Inflation Reduction Act and called for an end to the “offshoring” of American manufacturing.

Boebert, who is seeking a third term — and her first outside of the Western Slope-based 3rd Congressional District — defended her record. She hit on familiar red-meat issues for the Republican Party, saying she wanted to cut taxes, “take our country back,” “bring back prosperity” and “secure our southern border.”

At one point, she derisively referred to American citizens born to undocumented immigrants as “anchor babies” and said they should not receive certain tax-credit assistance.

The debate, co-hosted by Colorado Politics/the Denver Gazette and the Douglas County Economic Development Corporation at The Club at Ravenna, focused on the economy and business issues.

It was the first debate since Boebert cruised to a June primary win over a crowded Republican field. Amid serious challenges from both Democrats and Republicans in her home district, she had switched from seeking reelection to vying in the 4th after then-U.S. Rep. Ken Buck announced he wouldn’t run for the seat again in the November election.

Though Boebert is new to the district, she is the odds-on favorite to win. The Eastern Plains-focused 4th District is Colorado’s most conservative district, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than 2-to-1, giving her a greater advantage on paper than she had in her old district. The 4th takes in extensive farmland as well as south suburban Denver’s Douglas County.

On Tuesday, Calvarese sought to contrast her stated desire for partnership and compromise with Boebert’s approach, which Calvarese characterized as “defund, to cancel it, shut down the government if you don’t get your way.”

Despite being one of the most partisan members of a particularly partisan Congress, Boebert touted her own bipartisan efforts, including by pointing to her support for a bill backed by U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse, a Colorado Democrat, that would allow federal land to be used for housing.

Here’s what else Boebert and Calvarese discussed Tuesday:

National debt

In response to a question about the growing national debt, Boebert said she wanted to go through spending individually, line by line. She said she wouldn’t support larger omnibus funding bills and instead wanted individual appropriations bills.

“I do not agree with Republican debt as much as I do not agree with Democrat debt,” she said.

Calvarese said she wanted to better tax corporations that hide “their money abroad” and repeatedly said that the “middle class needs a tax break.” She said the federal government should look for efficiencies, with help from artificial intelligence, to reduce unnecessary spending.

She also said she would support keeping the federal corporate tax rate at its current level, while Boebert said she wanted former President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts to be continued and the rates “lowered significantly.”

Those individual income tax cuts are set to expire at the end of next year. If they were extended for another decade, they would add $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit over that time period, according to a nonpartisan fiscal analysis.

Veterans

The most extended scuffle of the debate came next. Calvarese accused Boebert of not supporting veterans, pointing to Boebert’s support for a bill that would have cut the Department of Veterans Affairs budget and her opposition to a bill that would’ve expanded health benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances.

“Don’t sit here and tell us … that you are somehow for veterans,” Calvarese said.

Boebert defended her support for veterans and her vote against the toxic substances bill. She said she wasn’t able to provide amendments and that she wasn’t willing to spend “a billion dollars forever because we couldn’t get a couple of pieces of language right in the legislation.”

As for the VA, she criticized the department’s responsiveness and then criticized some Democrats’ support for a universal health care system.

Economic lightning round

Boebert and Calvarese were peppered with several lightning round questions, including on whether they supported increasing the federal minimum wage, which currently stands at $7.25 an hour, about half of Colorado’s minimum. Boebert said she opposed increasing it. Calvarese said she supported increasing the minimum wage — including for tipped workers — to $15 an hour.

Both said they supported a policy backed by Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential race to end taxes on tips. Both also said they opposed privatizing social security benefits and would support legislation that would bar entities from foreign countries — like China or Saudi Arabia — from buying American farmland.

More debates?

In a brief talk with reporters after the debate, Calvarese called on Boebert to meet her again for at least two more debates, which would be televised.

“This was the beginning of what I think is a job interview for all of our constituents,” Calvarese said.

In a separate media gaggle, Boebert would not commit to additional debates and said Calvarese “had her debate today.”

“I debate Democrats on a daily basis,” she said. “It is my job.”

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

The deadline to finalize the state’s ballot is coming Friday, but all of the citizen initiatives — meaning ballot questions pursued by members of the public, rather than the legislature — were finalized late last week. State election officials certified that the final ones had received enough petition signatures after clearing earlier regulatory hurdles.

Nine ballot measures from the public have been approved. But two of those — the property tax-related initiatives 50 and 108 — are both set to be withdrawn by sponsors as part of negotiations with the governor’s office and the state legislature, which on Thursday passed another property tax relief bill at the end of a special session.

The remaining seven citizen initiatives will join several questions referred to the ballot by the legislature, including one to excise an unenforceable anti-same sex marriage provision from the state constitution; another to institute a new tax on guns and ammunition; and a measure that would allow judges to deny bail to people charged with first-degree murder.

Here’s a breakdown of the citizen’s initiatives that will be on the ballot (minus the soon-to-be-pulled property tax measures):

Election overhaul

Proposition 131 — previously Initiative 310 — would change how Colorado runs elections for U.S. senators and congressional representatives; for governor, treasurer, attorney general and secretary of state; and for state senators and representatives.

It would institute fully open primaries for those seats, meaning that candidates from all parties and those who are unaffiliated would appear on the same ballot. And in the general election, it would create a ranked-choice voting system for those races in a process that’s also referred to as instant-runoff voting.

If more than four people run in the open primary, then the top four vote recipients — regardless of party — would advance to the November general election.

In a general election race that has more than two candidates, voters would rank the candidates by preference. For example, if there are four candidates, a voter would be asked to rank them from one to four.

In the first round of vote tabulation, voters’ first-place choices would be counted, with the lowest-performing candidate then automatically eliminated from contention. The votes of that eliminated candidate’s supporters then switch to the voters’ next-ranked candidate in the next tabulation round. The lowest-performing candidate is again eliminated, with their voters’ next-ranked active candidate getting those votes.

When two candidates remain, the top vote-getter wins.

If passed, the changes would go into effect in 2026 under the initiative. However, a late amendment to a law passed by the legislature in May has thrown a speed bump in front of that implementation runway, and if the initiative passes, lawmakers may wrangle further over how to implement the new law.

The measure is backed by Kent Thiry, the millionaire former CEO of DaVita. Thiry previously backed ballot initiatives to open Colorado’s partisan primaries to unaffiliated voters and to change how Colorado draws its congressional and state legislative maps, with a switch to independent redistricting commissions.

Abortion

Amendment 79 would elevate the right to abortion to the Colorado Constitution by prohibiting the government from denying, impeding or discriminating against a person’s ability to exercise that right. The initiative would also clear the way for state-funded insurance, such as Medicaid, to cover abortion services, repealing another provision of the state constitution that prohibits the use of public funds to pay for abortion.

Colorado lawmakers passed a bill two years ago that enshrined abortion rights in state law, though it didn’t affect the constitutional ban on the use of state money.

Because this initiative would alter the state constitution, it requires support from 55% of voters to approve it. The initiative is backed by abortion rights advocacy groups, including Cobalt and the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights.

School choice

Amendment 80, backed by conservative advocacy group Advance Colorado, would enshrine school choice — which includes “neighborhood, charter, private and home schools” — in the state constitution. Those options already exist under state law, but charter school supporters of the initiative told Chalkbeat that they want to ensure that doesn’t change via legislative debates at the Capitol.

Similar to the abortion measure, this ballot question would need 55% voter approval to pass.

Trophy hunting

Proposition 127 would make it illegal to trophy hunt or commercially trap mountain lions, bobcats and lynxes in Colorado. That includes killing, wounding, entrapping or pursuing the animals, according to the initiative, as well as discharging a deadly weapon at them.

The measure includes a few exceptions, such as killing the animals for self-defense or trapping them for legitimate research purposes. The initiative is supported by the coalition group Cats Aren’t Trophies.

Parole eligibility

Proposition 128 would tighten state sentencing terms, requiring people convicted of certain violent crimes to serve more of their sentences before they become eligible for parole. If the measure passes, anyone convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree burglary, felony kidnapping or other listed crimes after July 1, 2025, would be required to serve 85% of their sentences before they could be released. That’s up from 75% in current law.

The initiative would also require that people who previously had been convicted of two violent crimes serve their full sentence if convicted for one of those listed felonies. The initiative is also backed by Advance Colorado.

Veterinary professional qualifications

Proposition 129 would create a new veterinarian position in Colorado: a “veterinary professional associate.” People seeking that position would have to hold a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care (or an equivalent level of qualification as determined by the state board of veterinary medicine).

This new type of provider would have to be registered with the state board. The initiative is backed by the Dumb Friends League, the Denver-based animal shelter, which says it’ll help boost the veterinary workforce. Critics, though, argue the initiative would allow for substandard medical care.

Police funding

Proposition 130 — another backed by Advance Colorado — would require that the state add $350 million to a new “peace officer training and support fund.” That money would have to be on top of existing funds already going to law enforcement agencies.

The ballot measure does not establish a new source for that money, like a tax or fee, meaning the state would have to pull the money from elsewhere in its budget.

The money would be set aside for increased salaries, for the hiring of area- or crime-specific officers, for training, and for other related services. The measure would also require that $1 million be paid from the fund to the family of each law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty.

Editor’s note: This story was updated Sept. 9, 2024, to include the official ballot titles for the initiatives.

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

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.

“I wish I could say I were surprised, but in a year when a Black woman could become POTUS, those with hate in their heart are going to coordinate these kinds of atrocious, expensive campaigns to stir division,” Denver City Councilwoman Shontel Lewis said in a statement on X.

The first Denver sign was reported around 5 a.m. Thursday by a bus driver on the pole of a bus stop near the intersection of Colfax Avenue and Oneida Street, according to a news release from Regional Transportation District. The two other signs in Denver were found at Colfax’s intersections with Garfield Street, near St. Joseph’s Medical Center, and with Yosemite Street.

Around 8:20 a.m. Thursday, one man in Denver’s Congress Park neighborhood spotted two white women putting up the sign at the bus stop at Colfax and Garfield.

“It was one of those things where you know something is out of place, but you don’t know what’s going on,” Congress Park resident Greg Bell said.

Bell said he passed the two women — who were carrying a white stepladder and trash bags he believes were holding the signs — as he made his way into a nearby grocery store. Minutes later, he saw the pair setting up the stepladder in front of the bus stop and one woman climbing onto it while holding a white, metal sign.

Denver Police Chief Ron Thomas on Friday said all the signs had been posted by 7:30 a.m. so it was more likely the women Bell saw were removing the signs.

Photos posted by Lewis show the signs screwed into the pole of that bus stop.

One white sign reads “Blacks must sit at the back of the bus. Kamala’s migrants sit in the front.” Another yellow caution sign on the same pole warns riders of “Kamala’s illegals,” with imagery of people running that is supposed to signify immigrants crossing the border.

The caution sign mimics real road signage that was posted until 2018 in California, warning drivers near the San Diego border to watch for migrants running across the freeway.

An Instagram account linked to Sabo — a right-wing street artist known for controversial art criticizing progressive policies and candidates — posted photos of the three Denver signs and a fourth at the intersection of Nome Street and East Colfax Avenue in Aurora.

That intersection is near an Aurora apartment complex recently shut down for city health and building code violations, uprooting hundreds of Venezuelan migrants.

The post on the Instagram account that links to Sabo’s UNSAVORYAGENTS website references the apartment closure, standing by claims from building ownership that a Venezuelan gang took over the complex. Aurora police and city officials have repeatedly denied the claims.

“The recent appearance of racist signs in Denver is deeply troubling and does not reflect the values of our city,” the Denver City Council said in an emailed statement Thursday. “… We stand with all residents in condemning these acts and reaffirm our commitment to building a community where everyone feels safe, valued and heard.”

RTD officials said similar signs had appeared recently at bus stops in Chicago and that Colorado officials were connecting with other agencies across the county to “assess the magnitude of the coordinated racist activity.” The Instagram account linked to Sabo includes an Aug. 21 picture of a similar sign the caption states was posted at a bus stop outside the United Center, where the Democratic National Convention was happening.

Shortly before the Legislature ended its property tax-focused special session Thursday, two Denver lawmakers decried the signs from the state House floor.

“What I think is important is that we confront our history and note that if any of us care to say that we have moved forward, that all of us demonstrate in standing here … that this is hate, and that it’s unacceptable,” said Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Denver Democrat and the House’s assistant majority leader. “We don’t know who put these up, and so we don’t know who’s part of the problem. We know that we cannot continue to allow people to believe that this is acceptable or allow people to believe that they can grow power from posting signs like this.”

RTD officials worked with Denver law enforcement to remove all the reported signs and are investigating each of the incidents..

“RTD strongly condemns the hateful, discriminatory message portrayed by the signs,” transportation officials wrote in the release. “There is no place for racism or discrimination at RTD or within the communities we serve … nor should such vile messaging be tolerated or supported by anyone.”

Anyone who sees unauthorized signs or suspicious behavior at RTD bus stops should call Transit Police Dispatch at 303-299-2911, text 303-434-9100 or submit an anonymous report using RTD’s Transit Watch app.

Sign up to get crime news sent straight to your inbox each day.

Updated at 1:52 p.m. Friday, Aug. 30, 2024: This article was updated to include new information about what two women seen by a witness with a stepladder near one of the posted signs were doing.

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.