By Jared Jacang Maher, FACE THE STATE

The Denver Post recently has been looking into how certain wealthy landowners in Colorado are paying next to nothing in taxes on their multimillion dollar properties thanks to the state’s broad definition of agricultural land. The agricultural designation, originally intended for working ranchers and farmers, is now being utilized by developers as a selling point for luxury mountain homes. One 336-acre ranch that was part of a $24 million sale “pays $201 in property taxes,” writes Post reporter Nancy Lofholm. “Another one of the ranches, on 679 acres, pays $275, and a 441-acre ranch pays $255.”

But anyone looking for a telling example of a landowner who has taken advantage of this generous tax status need look no further than Colorado’s incoming governor. John Hickenlooper owns 225 acres in the mountains of Park County. His annual property-tax bill, according to county assessor records: $75.

(Read Face the State’s past articles about Hickenlooper’s property in Park County here, here, and here).

In 2000, Hickenlooper and business partner Lee Driscoll obtained 660 acres in a land swap with the U.S. Forest Service with the understanding that the property would be protected from development through Colorado’s conservation easement program, which allows landowners to earn additional credits against their state income taxes.

But at the county level, Hickenlooper and Driscoll were still required to pay the standard property-tax rate for undeveloped property. Driscoll fought to get the land designated agricultural, which would be taxed at a much reduced rate.

Park County Assessor Dave Wissel recalls the pair’s approach being “backasswards,” he says. Normally, a property is already designated “agricultural” before a conservation easement is placed on it. But Hickenlooper and Driscoll already had begun placing easements on certain sections of the land.

Plus, “agricultural” status was traditionally for cattle ranchers and farmers. Hickenlooper’s and Driscoll’s land in the mountainous area south of the Town of Bailey was appropriate for neither. “I said well if you spruced it up, you could get some use, try to get some portion of it that’s feasible and get a grazing program, but that wasn’t really feasible,” says Wissel. The next option was to get the land into a program called “Forest Agriculture,” administered through the Colorado Forest Service. Originally established for Christmas Tree farmers, the program says the property owner must produce at least $200 of wood product a year.

In 2003, the Park County Board of commissioners passed Hickenlooper’s request to rezone his property from “conservation recreation” to “agricultural,” thereby reducing taxes significantly. Since 2002, Hickenlooper has deducted $1.1 million from his federal taxes and hundreds of thousands more in state tax credits by Park County through the conservation easements claims. A five-acre subdivision cut from the center of Hickenlooper’s 225-acre conservation easement allows for the construction of a cabin and other buildings.

Hickenlooper and Driscoll have not responded to inquiries by Face the State. There is no indication that any of their transactions were outside Colorado law. Meanwhile, the long-standing controversy over these property-tax policies continues at the State Capitol.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS

A potential political showdown over whether to permanently extend tax cuts, even for the wealthy, will likely follow the national trend and split down party lines here in Colorado, though some Republicans say they are open to a temporary compromise.

U.S. House Republican leader John Boehner said yesterday that Republicans plan on pushing for extending the tax cuts permanently, even for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans.

Of contention is whether to allow tax cuts from former Republican President George W. Bush’s era expire that affect America’s wealthiest taxpayers.

Democrats have called for letting the tax cuts expire at the end of the year, while extending lower tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000.

It originally appeared like Republicans might compromise by backing a temporary extension of the lower tax rates for everyone, then taking the issue up again at a later time, possibly before the 2012 elections.

But Boehner made it clear yesterday that the majority of Republicans are not considering such a compromise.

“I think that extending all of the current tax rates, and making them permanent, will reduce the uncertainty in America, and help small businesses to create jobs again …” said Boehner. “That’s why making these permanent will be the most important thing we can do to help create jobs in the country.”

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., has suggested extending all the lower tax rates for one year simply to start a discussion.

“Michael’s priority is a long-term extension of the middle class tax cuts. He has suggested a compromise that would extend all tax cuts for one year, which would allow for a real conversation on how we pay for them and how we can retool our tax code to drive innovation and keep jobs in America,” said Michael Amodeo, Bennet’s spokesman. “We need both parties to put aside the politics and work together to get the job done for the American people.”

Many Republicans, however, do not seem open to the compromise. Republican Congressman-elect Scott Tipton, who will be replacing Congressman John Salazar, D-Manassa, said his priority is on a permanent extension of the tax cuts, including those for the wealthy.

“One of the things that was made very clear during the campaign and ultimately decided in the election was that the voters feel that jobs are of utmost importance. In order to stimulate the economy, small businesses need certainty in regards to the tax policy; therefore, an extension of the Bush tax cuts is important, and I would like to ultimately see them made permanent,” Tipton told the Denver Daily News via e-mail.

Congressman Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, is one Republican who said he is open to a temporary compromise.

“Raising taxes on small businesses anytime, and particularly in a recession, will be damaging to economic investment and job creation. I strongly support a permanent extension of all the current tax rates. However, something is better than nothing, and I would support a two-year extension if that proposal comes to a vote. Should that be the case, I will fight to make that temporary extension permanent,” Coffman said via e-mail.

A spokeswoman for Republican Congressman-elect Cory Gardner, who will be replacing Congresswoman Betsy Markey, D-Fort Collins, said he is advocating for a permanent extension.

But Congressman Ed Perlmutter, D-Lakewood, said he cannot support a permanent tax extension for the wealthy.

“I support permanently extending the tax cuts for the middle-class and not for people making over $250,000,” he said via e-mail. “I do not support permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”

Spokespeople for U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, and Jared Polis, D-Boulder, did not immediately return requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Congressman Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, said he was unavailable yesterday to immediately comment. A spokeswoman for U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., did not return a request for comment.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Todd Shepherd, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

Repealing the so-called “Amazon tax” from last year’s legislative session could be among the first priorities of the new General Assembly in January because of two important changes from last year: power in the House of Representatives has shifted to Republicans, and a recent court ruling in Washington could portend good fortune for a similar lawsuit filed against the collection of Internet sales taxes here in Colorado. Critics of the measure dubbed House Bill 10-1193 the “Amazon tax” because Amazon.com is one of the chief retailers that would be affected by the new regulations.

The legislation that passed in 2010 lifted the long-standing sales-tax exemption on Internet purchases in which the retailer is outside Colorado. While retailers cannot be forced to collect sales tax on behalf of a state in which they do not have a physical presence, the Colorado law seeks to compel retailers of a certain size to provide the Department of Revenue with a yearly report on the total amount of an individual’s purchases on which sales tax was not collected.

A recent federal court ruling in Washington said collecting a customer’s purchase information, and delivering that information to a government agency, violates a customer’s privacy rights. The court ruling even prompted the Denver Post, during a busy election season, to use a portion of its editorial pages to argue for repeal of the tax, saying, “…until Congress finds a national solution to the problem, we worry Colorado’s attempt likely will lead to lengthy court battles and headaches for taxpayers.” While Amazon.com filed the suit against North Carolina, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) has filed suit against Colorado’s Department of Revenue.

Even before the GOP took control of the Colorado house in Tuesday’s General Election, Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, announced plans to introduce legislation to repeal the exemption. She offered an olive branch to Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper, however.

“There’s a chance to reach a compromise,” Stephens said. “Like us, we believe the new governor cares about jobs. We will work with the governor and his staff to reach a compromise. I don’t think anyone thinks we’ve gained anything from this Amazon tax.”

Jerry Cerasale of the Direct Marketing Association, said the court win by Amazon didn’t guarantee a win by the DMA against the Colorado Department of Revenue.

“The North Carolina lawsuit has helped us, but there are a lot of differences (between the two cases), and you never know how a court is going to go,” Cerasale said. The DMA has also filed an injunction hoping to stop Colorado from implementing the first parts of the tax until the full lawsuit is heard. Cerasale said he’s hopeful the ruling on the injunction will come before the end of January.

Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, Senate sponsor of last spring’s legislation imposing the Amazon tax, emphasized he was not speaking on behalf of his caucus, but said the North Carolina court ruling may actually help Colorado keep the tax in place.

“North Carolina goes into, ‘Did you buy books, did you buy CD’s, whatever you bought.’ All we ask, in this case, for Amazon to provide (to the state) is that Rollie Heath’s family purchased $500 from Amazon last year.”

When the 2010 General Assembly originally passed the legislation, Amazon.com created a public relations storm when the company reacted by closing all “associate” accounts in Colorado. Associate accounts allow individuals to partner with Amazon.com and profit from sales that the individual creates in tandem with the retailing giant.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

STATE BILL COLORADO

A federal judge in Washington state has given a boost to foes of a Colorado Internet sales tax passed earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled against the North Carolina Department of Revenue in its demand for private information detailing customer purchases from Amazon.com for the purposes of internet sales tax collection, Colorado Rep. Amy Stephens said Tuesday. Amazon is based in Washington state.

The new Colorado Internet sales tax law, HB10-1193, is constructed similarly to North Carolina’s. It requires online retailers that don’t collect sales tax to transmit information about customer purchases to state tax collectors.

“I am pleased that Amazon.com has stood up for the protection of consumer privacy in North Carolina and am hopeful that Colorado tax collectors will take notice of this case as well,” said Stephens, R-Monument.

Stephens’ full statement is published below along with a copy of the North Carolina ruling.

Stephens Praises Decision by Federal Judge for Siding With Privacy in Amazon.com Lawsuit

State Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, today praised the decision by U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman, of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for her ruling against the North Carolina Department of Revenue in their demand for private information detailing customer purchases from Amazon.com for the purposes of internet sales tax collection.

“Judge Pechman today ruled in favor of Amazon.com and their right to protect the privacy and purchase information of their customers,” Stephens said. “I will continue to fight to protect Colorado consumers from the same invasion of purchase and privacy information we face as a result of the internet sales tax law (aka Amazon.com) being implemented here at home. It is my hope that the Colorado law, House Bill 1193, will be overturned by the courts as well.”

Similar to a recent law adopted in Colorado, the North Carolina Department of Revenue demanded detailed information from Amazon.com on the purchases made by North Carolina residents. Amazon.com’s lawyers argued that the request threatened the constitutional free speech and privacy rights of consumers by asking for names and detailed purchase information of online shoppers.

“I feel very strongly that the level of detail being requested by our own Colorado Department of Revenue violates privacy and goes far beyond the comfort level of many Coloradans,” Stephens said. “Coloradans should be free to make online purchases without government looking over their shoulder. I am pleased that Amazon.com has stood up for the protection of consumer privacy in North Carolina and am hopeful that Colorado tax collectors will take notice of this case as well.”

The Colorado law, arising out of House Bill 10-1193, requires Amazon.com and other internet retailers to notify consumers of the sales and use taxes accrued from their annual online purchases. Internet retailers are then asked to provide a detailed list of consumers’ names and purchases to the Colorado Department of Revenue. Similar to the North Carolina case, Amazon.com and Stephens have argued that requiring a retailer to provide detailed information related to customer transactions violates their purchase and privacy rights.

The Colorado law is currently being challenged by the Direct Marketers Association of which Amazon.com is a member. Stephens says this latest court ruling should serve as a reminder to policymakers that you cannot sacrifice the freedoms of citizens to balance the state budget.

2010-10-25-AmazonvLay-Order(2)

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

Rolling back a hike in vehicle-registration fees, lowering energy costs, and reinforcing taxpayer rights are on their to-do list when the legislature convenes in January, say state Senate Republicans.

Those goals, unveiled this week as a “Pledge to Colorado Taxpayers,” represent the third installment of the Senate Republicans’ 2011 legislative agenda.

“This will ensure Colorado families have more of their hard-earned tax dollars while protecting vital government services,” said Senate GOP Caucus Chair Bill Cadman, of Colorado Springs.

The plan seeks to:

• Phase out an increase in vehicle-registration fees, contained in legislation dubbed “FASTER,” passed by the General Assembly in 2009;
• Repeal the Public Utility Commission’s authority to implement a much-debated, two-tiered rate structure for power;
• Change the law to make a clear and enforceable distinction between fees and taxes and requiring a super-majority vote for all fee increases;
• Guarantee that any tax increase proposed is brought to the people for a vote.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader John Morse, also of Colorado Springs, discounted the latest legislative foray by Republicans as impractical and too costly—safety-wise. Morse said that when FASTER was proposed, his caucus tried to get the Republicans to help them with it and they refused.

“There’s a debit side to the ledger and a credit side to the ledger,” said Morse. “We have unsafe bridges and Democrats came up with this plan (FASTER). The Republican plan says ‘public safety be damned! We’re going to save people $45 per year!’ How about solutions instead of just attacking the innovative solutions that have already been implemented?”

Morse said he also takes issue with the notion that fee increases merit a super-majority vote, stating that the higher standard would compromise democracy.

Critics of recent fee hikes have decried the increases as an end-run on TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights amendment enacted into the state’s constitution in 1992. It requires all tax hikes and bonded debt to be put to a popular vote.

“Most of the people in Colorado believe in democracy and democracy is fifty percent plus one. Whenever you require a supermajority, you give the power away from democracy and empower the minority,” said Morse.

Yet, Cadman says taxpayers deserve more protections.

“Over-promising and overspending led Democrat lawmakers to continually circumvent taxpayer protections in our state constitution,” Cadman said. “It is time we rein in out-of-control spending and begin to budget to the core functions of government.”

Earlier this fall, the Senate GOP also released an Agenda for Economic Recovery and an Agenda to Reform & Restrain Government.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

When it costs more to collect a tax than the money collected, it may be time to eliminate that tax, says Amendment R, a measure referred to the November statewide ballot by the legislature.

Amendment R asks voters to let counties not collect taxes on portions of federally owned property that is leased by individuals or businesses. Currently, the tax is assessed on those individuals or businesses leasing federal lands under a provision in the tax code called possessory interest tax. It is paid to counties based on the taxable value of the portion of the property that is being utilized by the lessees.

Federal lands are often leased by farmers and ranchers for grazing purposes; they typically pay less than $6,000 a year to use the land resulting in a tax that is far below the county’s administrative fees, says Rep. Randy Baumgardner, R-Hot Sulphur Springs, the sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 1005, the legislation that placed the issue on the ballot.

“We went for the smaller end ($6,000 or less),” said Baumgardner noting that the counties will still receive revenue from leases that are above the $6,000 threshold.

Baumgardner said that the issue of the tax was initially brought up by constituents who felt they were being unfairly taxed.

“The folks that were leasing the federal lands were saying they didn’t feel they should be paying tax on land they didn’t own,” said Baumgardner.

Meanwhile, the counties were finding that they were spending over $100 in administrative fee to collect as little as 40 cents. According to Baumgardner, the counties came and told lawmakers that they were in favor of the measure in light of the upside-down position they found themselves in through collecting the tax.

In order for a measure to be placed on the ballot by the legislature, it must pass with a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber rather than a simple majority. Lawmakers met the two-thirds threshold despite the handful of Democratic lawmakers who voted against the proposal.

Among those who voted against HCR 1005 is the Democratic chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Randy Fischer, of Fort Collins. Fischer said today that while he doesn’t fully recall the debate on the issue, he stands behind his vote based on the premise that no one should be exempt from taxes they owe.

“Just because a tax bill is small, it doesn’t necessarily justify its non-payment,” said Fischer. “Everybody has to pay their property tax, their specific ownership tax, and other things, and we shouldn’t give this type of a break to someone who receives a private benefit from the use of government land.”

Baumgardner says that exempting the farmers and ranchers from the costly collection of the tax by the counties is a win-win for both the counties and for farmers and ranchers.

“We’ve been taxed and fee’d, and people are getting tired of tax increases and fee increases, and this is just one way to help the farmers and ranchers, especially since it will actually save counties money,” said Baumgardner.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By David Harrison, STATELINE

Photo by Michael Conroy, the Associated Press Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels made the case for permanent property tax caps at a Wednesday morning rally in suburban Indianapolis. Property tax caps are an issue in several states this election season, including Indiana where a constitutional amendment on the matter is on the ballot. Nestled in a 224-page gubernatorial campaign agenda from New York’s Andrew Cuomo this spring was a call for a cap on local property taxes. The proposal didn’t take long to attract attention. The state teachers’ union, often friendly with the Democratic attorney general, withheld its endorsement. Cuomo had proposed to cap all local tax increases at 2 percent per year in an attempt to ease the burden on taxpayers and force governments to slash spending. Even though traditional Democratic constituencies don’t like it, the idea has appealed to New Yorkers increasingly frustrated with their tax burden, according to polls.Candidates of both parties have had the same idea. Property tax caps, freezes or cuts have appeared in campaign agendas in at least a half-dozen states. The issue appears as a ballot initiative in Indiana, Colorado, Missouri and Louisiana. It’s not unusual for office-seekers to tout lower taxes, and statewide limitations on local taxes have been a continuing part of American politics since 1978, when California voters passed Proposition 13. But this year, denunciations of property taxes have grown sharper, as voters, stung by the recession, struggle to pay their bills. This trend has alarmed local governments and school districts, which rely primarily on property tax revenue to pay for services, especially now that state aid and other forms of income are down sharply. Unlike other tax cuts, property taxes are unusual in that the state government has the authority to make the cuts but doesn’t suffer their direct effects. Bearing the brunt instead are local services, parks, fire and police departments and schools. “You really do see calls for property tax reform in particular during down economic times,” says Joseph Marbach, provost of LaSalle University and an expert in New Jersey politics. “We had a rash of them in the 1970s when California spearheaded everything and then Massachusetts followed and a wave struck the country. It was quiet for a while and now we’re seeing it.” Prop. 13’s legacy In 1980, two years after California’s Proposition 13 dramatically reduced property tax bills, Massachusetts voters opted to limit their annual property tax increases to 2.5 percent. In 1992, Colorado voters approved the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, which capped governments’ revenue increases at the rate of inflation plus population growth. Subsequent legislation and initiatives have weakened TABOR but a measure on the Colorado ballot this year would reinstate the caps and make them stricter. Today, roughly 40 states have some sort of property tax restriction on the books. But few of them set the tax limits low enough to inhibit local governments’ ability to raise revenue. Besides Cuomo, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, a Democrat running for reelection, also wants property taxes to go down in exchange for an increase in the state income tax. School officials in Illinois are leery about becoming more dependent on a state government that already is months behind in paying its bills. In New Jersey, Chris Christie was elected governor last year in part thanks to his promise to cut property taxes. As governor, he was able to persuade the Democratic Legislature to pass a measure capping annual increases in local tax bills at 2 percent. Republican candidates Rick Scott of Florida, Terry Branstad of Iowa and Paul LePage of Maine all have advocated property tax caps or cuts. LePage goes so far as calling for the tax to be phased out completely. Property taxes are one of the most reliable sources of local government revenue, since property values generally remain relatively stable, unlike income and sales taxes, which vary widely depending on the state of the economy. Local governments, as a result, use property taxes to fund services when state budgets are cut and other tax sources are drying up. Census data show that property tax collections were the only major form of state and local tax revenue to increase in every quarter throughout the recession. “Local governments often feel a squeeze because everything rolls downhill,” says Doug Roscoe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. “The federal government is going to reduce its transfers of aid to states, and the states in turn slash their aid to localities, and localities have to turn to other sources of revenue, which is the property tax.” In Massachusetts, local governments that want to raise more money from property taxes than allowed under the 1980 cap have to ask voters for approval. The number of override requests jumps dramatically during economic downturns, Roscoe says. This recession differs from past ones in that property values have dropped much more sharply, forcing local governments to raise property tax rates to make up the difference, angering voters, and handing candidates an issue to campaign on. The debate over property taxes also reveals just how constrained local governments are. When it comes to raising money, they are entirely dependent on the will of the legislature and statewide officials. “In most states, you have relatively limited local autonomy in terms of just about everything to do with government,” Roscoe says. “There’s really no federalism within the states. You often have state policies that affect local levels of taxation.” Reduced resources In Indiana, representatives of local government have warned that voting for this year’s property tax cap amendment would result in fewer services, but public opinion in support of the ballot measure is so strong they have not mounted an intensive campaign to defeat it. Governor Mitch Daniels, who is pondering running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, is one of the proposal’s strongest backers. He says local governments will still be able to increase their property tax receipts under the proposed amendment as long as they get voter approval first. “When local spending units want to raise more money, they have to get the people’s permission to do it. It’s no longer the case that they can raise it at their own discretion and that’s the way it should be,” he said at a rally on Wednesday. Indiana’s Legislature already has capped residential and commercial property taxes, but this November’s ballot initiative would put those caps in the state constitution. To pay for them, the Legislature increased the state sales tax and took over school funding, police and firefighter pension payments and other expenses that were once the responsibility of local governments. School districts already have complained that their resources have been cut. “There’s really very little way for us to make up the shortfalls,” says Matt Greller, executive director of the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns, adding that local officials rely on property taxes for between 55 and 70 percent of their spending. In Muncie, Indiana, tax caps were part of the reason why the city had to cut its budget by roughly $6 million over three years and lay off dozens of employees. The city council has also turned to fees to try to make up some of the money lost. Residents now pay a few dollars more on their water bills to finance the upkeep of fire hydrants, a $650,000 expense that used to come out of the city’s general fund. The hydrant fee has not generated much opposition, according to council member Sam Marshall. See related stories: A day to talk taxes (April 16, 2010) States limit sweeping tax hikes — so far (May 18, 2010) As states slash budgets, business tax breaks survive (July 6, 2010) –Contact David Harrison at dharrison@pewtrusts.org

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

The Senate cushioned a suspension in the enterprise zone tax credit that softens the blow for Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel in Pueblo, The Pueblo Chieftain reports.

On his last day in the Legislature, term-limited Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, changed his vote from earlier this week, but only because the impact on the mill was lessened by the amendment, and his shift led to the passage of HB1200 by one vote — 18-17.

Originally, the bill temporarily capped enterprise zone tax credits at $250,000. The steel mill claims $595,000 annually, according to state documents.

In other coverage

The Pueblo Chieftain: With just a few hours left before the end of the 2010 session Wednesday, the Colorado Legislature approved a measure temporarily capping enterprise zone credits. But that didn’t happen before lawmakers made one final change to House Bill 1200. Instead of imposing a three-year cap of those credits at $250,000 a year, a move that would have affected about 30 of the 5,500 businesses located inside enterprise zones, the cap was doubled.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

A legislative session that began with a fight over tax credits ended the same way Wednesday, The Durango Herald reports.

Legislators put more than $100 million of tax benefits on hold in the final hours of their session, suspending the “homestead exemption” for senior citizen homeowners and tax credits for big businesses.

Democratic sponsors argued that money will be needed next year, when steep cuts to schools are expected.

In other coverage:

The Denver Daily News: Senior citizens and big businesses would be affected under two bills that lawmakers passed yesterday. Senate Bill 190 would eliminate part of the property tax exemptions that qualifying senior citizens get in Colorado, while House Bill 1200 would delay tax credits for Colorado’s largest businesses that operate in enterprise zones. The bills seek to help close an estimated $85 million budget gap in the state budget.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

A bill that would cap enterprise zone tax credits at $250,000, costing Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel in Pueblo about $345,000 annually was killed in the Senate on Monday, but promptly revived, The Pueblo Chieftain reports.

After HB1200 failed on an 18-16 vote, a motion was made to reconsider the action, and it was resuscitated. A final vote on the bill is expected today in the Senate.

The bill would impact about 50 businesses statewide (some of which claim the exemption at more than one outlet). The steel mill in Pueblo ranks 12th on the list, with an enterprise zone tax break of $595,634 annually, according to state documents.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >