Print subscribers please click here to create your digital access account
Voters in November also sought to reduce their taxes and, taken together, the changes could lead to difficult decisions down the road.
This item is available in full to subscribers.
If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
If you made a voluntary contribution in 2021-2022, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one at no additional charge. VIP Digital Access includes access to all websites and online content.
The state partners with local communities to increase and preserve Colorado’s affordable housing stock, manage rental-assistance vouchers, and address homelessness, says the state’s “blue book” voter guide, noting the state Department of Local Affairs is involved.
The current budget for the department’s affordable housing initiatives is about $200 million, about half of which is from state sources, with the rest coming from federal sources.
Since 2021, the state has allocated more than $1.2 billion from the federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 for affordable housing and services that address housing insecurity, lack of affordable and workforce housing, or homelessness. (The Urban Land Institute defines “workforce” households as those earning between 60% and 120% of the area median income.)
These are one-time funds that will be spent over the next several years on:
• Emergency rental assistance;
• Homeowner mortgage assistance;
• Tax credits for developers;
• Housing and infrastructure;
• And other housing solutions, such as manufactured homes.
For projects to qualify for funding from Proposition 123, the local governments where the projects are located must commit to increasing affordable housing by 3% each year and create a fast-track approval process for affordable housing projects, the state’s “blue book” voter guide says.
“If a local government chooses not to meet these requirements, or if it fails to achieve its affordable housing goals, projects in that municipality or county will be temporarily ineligible for funding from these programs,” the guide says.
Few issues affect Coloradans as much as rising housing prices. The state will take a step toward addressing the problem — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year — as officials implement Proposition 123, approved by voters in November.
In just 12 years, the median cost of a single-family home in the Denver area jumped from about $200,000 to three times that amount, according to the latest report by the Colorado Association of Realtors. The trend was similar statewide.
Under Proposition 123, state officials are required to set money aside for more affordable housing and programs to help Coloradans acquire homes and stay housed. Though the measure didn’t raise tax rates to fund those programs, it will, eventually, reduce the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, refunds that Coloradans receive — by $86 per taxpayer for 2024, for example.
Yet voters in November also sought to reduce their taxes and, taken together, the changes could lead to difficult decisions down the road, said Scott Wasserman, who leads the nonprofit Bell Policy Center, which advocates for economic mobility for Coloradans. He called the passage of the measure “bittersweet.”
“I think what makes it bitter is that it passed in conjunction with Proposition 121,” a measure voters approved to lower the state income tax rate, Wasserman said.
Proposition 121 is expected to take a roughly $400-million bite out of the state budget next year while Proposition 123 will eventually increase spending about $290 million yearly.
State Rep. Rod Bockenfeld, a Republican who represents rural areas east of Denver, including parts of Adams, Arapahoe and Elbert counties, did not share Wasserman’s concern that the new measures could be problematic for state spending. However, Bockenfeld, who serves on the state legislature’s Joint Budget Committee, acknowledged the picture could change when the state faces strong economic headwinds.
“There’s a certain point where if we hit a severe downturn and we go into a deep recession, then a reduced tax rate will reduce state revenues,” Bockenfeld said.
Though the state struggles like the rest of the country with high inflation, the situation hasn’t been characterized as a recession or severe, though concerns that could happen linger.
Proposition 123 defines affordable housing based on two factors: household income and housing costs, according to the state’s “blue book” voter guide.
Under the proposal, affordable housing means housing for renters making up to 60% of the area median income or homeowners making up to 100% of the area median income. For context, in the metro area, the median income is $117,800, and 60% of median income is $70,700.
Under Proposition 123, local communities have flexibility to respond to housing needs.
The money could go toward grants and loans to local governments and nonprofits to acquire land for affordable housing developments; assistance to develop multifamily rentals, including apartments; programs that help first-time homebuyers; preventing homelessness through rental assistance and eviction defense; and grants to raise capacity at local government land-use departments.
The measure also could support “equity” sharing with tenants in housing projects. Equity is important because it allows people to gain financially from the rising value of their property and do things such as borrow money based on it.
“We know that home equity is a part of how you build intergenerational wealth,” said Wasserman.
He noted that people who are renting don’t have that opportunity to build equity.
Overall, the measure could help create more higher-density, environmentally sustainable homes, according to the voter guide.
Some in the housing industry say they can’t make a profit building “the kind of housing we need,” Wasserman said.
The measure, he added, tells housing developers, “‘We’re here to help you make it.’”
But the math isn’t easy. Part of what makes the equation difficult is TABOR, the state constitutional amendment that limits government spending. Under TABOR, revenue above the limit — sometimes called a “TABOR surplus” — gets refunded to taxpayers. The $750 rebate check that Coloradans received this year were a result of TABOR.
Colorado is seeing “very large TABOR surpluses,” in the ballpark of $3 billion this year and next year, Wasserman said. Although that sounds like a lot of money, it goes quick.
For example, money from the state’s “general fund” — which supports basic services, like K-12 education and public assistance — recently totaled $12.5 billion.
In years when state revenue comes in over the TABOR limit, Proposition 123 is estimated to decrease the amount returned by $43 per taxpayer in tax year 2023 and $86 per taxpayer in tax year 2024, according to the voter guide.
Meanwhile, Proposition 121, the measure to lower Colorado’s income tax, will also decrease refunds to taxpayers in years when state revenue exceeds TABOR’s limits. In those years, taxpayers generally may end up keeping money that would have been refunded anyway, Bockenfeld said.
“It leaves the money in the pocket of citizens rather than giving it to the government and the government giving it back,” Bockenfeld said.
Colorado’s new normal under Propositions 123 and 121 may not present hard choices when the economy is strong and the state takes in large sums of tax revenue. But during an economic downturn, Colorado may not see a so-called TABOR surplus of revenue.
That’s when priorities may end up on the cutting block, according to Wasserman.
Proposition 123 allows the state legislature to reduce part of the new housing funding to balance the state budget, according to the state’s voter guide. Essentially, if lawmakers find themselves in enough of a pinch, they can “turn off” parts of the measure, Wasserman said.
The alternative is typically cuts to education, especially higher education, meaning housing and education could be competing not to be cut.
In such a situation, “you’re not able to increase education funding based on growth or needs of schools,” Wasserman said.
In a tight spot, it’s possible state lawmakers could turn off the flow of funding to Proposition 123, according to Legislative Council Staff, the nonpartisan research arm at the state Capitol. The measure explicitly contemplates the fact that lawmakers might want to reduce the spending for budget balancing, so it says they are allowed to cut about half. But in practice, lawmakers could cut the spending entirely, according to staff.
Yet whether lawmakers would actually choose to override the will of the voters remains to be seen.
Another complication: When there is enough money, Colorado lawmakers can dip into the TABOR surplus for another purpose. The state allows a property tax exemption for qualifying senior citizens and disabled veterans, referred to as the homestead exemption. The senior homestead exemption can be paid for by the TABOR surplus, Wasserman said, potentially cutting into the available funds for affordable housing.
“That pool of money which is coming from our existing tax rates — it’s a life raft, and it’s like we’re shrinking the size of the life raft,” Wasserman said.
He also looks at Proposition 121 in anticipating future budget problems.
“If the state ends up as a result of this election cutting things, it’s not going to be because of 123 — it’s going to be because of 121,” he claimed. “I can’t be emphatic enough about that. We can shut off parts of 123 … we can never, ever, ever get the money back from 121.”
Other items that may interest you
We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.