Lawsuit challenges Ballot Initiative 1A for mental health - The Daily Planet

In November, property owners assumed the responsibility of paying for voter-approved tax initiatives like Ballot Measure 1A. The county-wide property tax, a mill levy increase of .75 of one mill, funds community-based mental health and substance abuse services.

Glenn Raleigh, who has lived in Telluride for 45 years, was squarely against the measure.  

Over the years Raleigh has contributed opposing views to the booklet that informs voters about ballot issues. In fact, he wrote the paragraph opposing 1A in this year’s booklet.

“In it I warned the public that 1A would set a precedent for fraudulent property taxation and the only way to stop it was through legal measures,” Raleigh explained.  

On Nov. 8, 2018, he filed a complaint and summons, seeking an injunction to stop the county from implementing 1A.

According to San Miguel County Attorney Amy T. Markwell, Raleigh submits two central claims in his complaint. First, the county doesn’t have statutory authority to raise taxes via an ad valorem property tax for mental health services given that there are statutory provisions that allow local government to raise the sales tax for mental health services. And second, that taxes are raised to defray direct county expenses. The county doesn’t have staff to provide mental health services and the county is violating law by passing taxpayer dollars to a third-party entity.

“I started looking into the legality of it and I found that property taxes can be used only to take care of the government — the employees, the buildings, the roads, etc. There’s nothing that says the county can use property taxes to fund mental health,” Raleigh explained. “But there is a statute specifically designed by the legislature to provide revenue for county mental health services called Sales Tax for Mental Health Care Services. But as we saw in the last election, people here want the rich property owners to pay for everything.”

Markwell pointed out that while Raleigh is correct that there is statutory authority for the county to ask voters to approve an increase in sales tax for the purposes of mental health services to residents, he is wrong that sales tax is the only way allowed. 

“It is telling that the legislature recognizes the importance of mental health treatment,” she said. “Because they have also specifically provided another statutory avenue for local governments to raise revenue for mental health services via the behavior health statutes — specifically 27-66-107 — which allows a county to ‘purchase mental health services from community mental health clinics and such other community agencies’ and allows the board of county commissioners to request taxpayers to allow for a tax increase up to two mills upon real property (i.e. an ad valorem property tax).”

Because taxes can be a touchy subject and it is very important for government to follow the law to raise them, Markwell said that litigation around this topic is common, though not in San Miguel County.

Raleigh suggests that the county tax marijuana to pay for mental health services as other resort communities have.

“That’s an appropriate tax but not property taxes,” Raleigh said. “Where does it stop? Funding this organization and that organization through property taxes? I’m not stopping. If the little guy like you and I don’t stand up and say, ‘I’ve had enough of this’ then they’re just going to railroad us right into a socialist utopia where you don’t have any say. It’s taxation without representation.”

So far, Raleigh and the county have been filing motions and response/counter motions with no hearings set. Markwell expects the court to issue a ruling on the legal merits of the case by the end of February or early March, at the latest, and is “very confident the law is on the side of the county.”

Since there is no temporary injunction in place, county commissioners may proceed with appointing an advisory board per the language of Ballot Measure 1A to be comprised of a representative from the school district, the Telluride Regional Medical Center, the Uncompahgre Medical Center, a county commissioner and two at-large public members. The panel will direct how the monies collected from the tax measure will be spent.  

Paul Reich, Tri-County Health Network program manager, clarified that while Tri-County campaigned for the ballot measure, the organization was not referred to in the ballot language, will not receive tax dollars generated from the initiative and does not have a formal seat at the table. Instead, Tri-County hopes to fill a similar role with this ballot measure that Bright Futures fills with the Strong Start, Strong Communities initiative passed in 2017 by helping the advisory panel do their job.  

“We’d like to be the organization that sets up the by-laws, conducts meetings, and undertakes research for planning and projects,” Reich explained. “Decisions will be made by the advisory panel, not by Tri-County.”

At the Jan. 23 county commissioner meeting, several agencies assigned individuals to the panel and the county will soon advertise for at-large members.

http://bit.ly/2Ghm0n0