Kersey's 17.205-mill town property tax, proposed for extension through 2037

Kersey's town government taxes property at 17.205 mills under a series of voter approvals, the latest in 2016 for 2018 through 2027, according to the town's 2026 budget. Voters had renewed it before that in 2007. The budget calls each approval a "De-Brucing measure," a name for a vote that lets a government keep revenue above the limits in the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR). On August 11, 2026, the town clerk told the Board of Trustees that the current authorization expires at the end of 2027, and the trustees voted 5 to 0 to put the renewal on the November 3 ballot, according to the meeting's draft minutes. It is the town's only ballot question, alongside races for mayor and two trustee seats.

A yes vote continues the levy for ten years, from January 1, 2028, through December 31, 2037. The referring ordinance says nothing in it authorizes an increase in the mill levy above 17.205 mills. A no vote lets the current authorization expire on December 31, 2027. The staff memo to the trustees says a no vote "would reduce future property tax revenues beginning in 2028 and may require the Board to evaluate future service levels or alternative funding sources." Kersey voters decide it by simple majority in the November 3 mail election, which Weld County coordinates.

As an example, at 17.205 mills, each $10,000 of taxable assessed value owes $172.05 a year to the town. Owners pay the 17.205-mill tax now, and a yes vote would continue it rather than add to it. The rate applies to taxable assessed value from the county's property tax record, not market value, and when assessed value changes, the tax changes with it at the same rate.

The 2026 budget's table reports an assessed value of $8,380,060 and taxes of $144,351 for 2015, and an assessed value of $32,924,930 and taxes of $566,490 for 2025. Those reported totals differ from the amounts calculated at 17.205 mills: $144,178.93 and $566,473.42, respectively. The town budgets $566,490 in property-tax collections for 2026. The town estimates its 2025 property tax collections at $454,642. Assessed value has also fallen in some years; the budget lists $49,401,930 for 2020 and $28,391,150 for 2021. At the July 14, 2026 board meeting, the town manager reported from a Weld County Assessor meeting that next year's property tax is declining again. The 2026 budget counts on $566,490 of property tax and $1,158,463 of sales tax, out of $2,419,199 in general fund revenue. The budget describes property and sales taxes as the town's largest revenue sources.

The question makes the extension a voter-approved revenue change under TABOR (Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution) and an exception to the limit in section 29-1-301 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The ordinance says both require the approval of Kersey's registered electors for the town "to retain the mill levy at a constant rate of 17.205 mills for a period of ten years." With a yes vote, the town may collect, retain and spend the levy's revenue notwithstanding those restrictions, for the same years as the extension.

The ballot names no project. The money is to "CONTINUE NECESSARY SUPPORT FOR THE CURRENT LEVEL OF TOWN OPERATIONS AND SERVICES." The budget books it in the general fund, which covers the administrative, police, judicial, parks, recreation, planning and zoning, engineering and sanitation departments, among others.

Three residents spoke on the ordinance on August 11, according to the draft minutes. Bill Cannon questioned the phrase "without increasing the tax rate" and said the town should consider lowering the levy to provide property tax relief. Jeff Gross said the language could confuse voters and that the measure should be described as a tax increase because the mill levy could otherwise decrease. Joan Lind said she found the language understandable, read the measure as keeping the existing levy, and worried that lower revenue could hurt existing services. Town Attorney Rick Zier advised the board that the Colorado Supreme Court has held that a revenue retention measure is not a tax increase for purposes of ballot wording.