brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

School districts exercise no discretion over the amount of the mill levy for the localshare, which is fixed by statute. Each year, the State informs the school districts what their localmill levy will be for the upcoming budget year, and the school districts develop and adopt theirannual budgets within those limits. Following adjustments based on local assessed valuationsand district pupil counts, the Colorado Department of Education certifies the final mill levy tothe school districts by December 10 of each year. The districts then certify the mill levy to thecounty or counties in which they are situated, and the county commissioners levy the tax. COLO.REV. STAT. § 39-1-111(1). School districts have no control over the amount of the mill levy andare not the government that levies and collects the taxes. To call a school district a “taxingauthority” in this context distorts the meaning of “authority” past all reasonable limits. 24In Claremont School District v. Governor, 142 N.H. 462, 703 A.2d 1353 (1997), the NewHampshire Supreme Court addressed the issue of which entity is the taxing authority forproperty taxes levied to support public schools. As in Colorado, New Hampshire public schoolsreceived their funding from local property taxes, direct legislative appropriations, and federalaid. Property taxes contributed to between 74 and 89 percent of the total school revenue. TheNew Hampshire constitution required that taxes be reasonable and “in due proportion.” Theplaintiffs argued that the total value of property subject to taxation for local school revenuevaried among the cities and towns of New Hampshire. The state argued that the school tax was alocal tax and thus met the constitutional requirement of reasonability and proportionality. Inruling that the system of unequal mill levies violated that state’s constitution, the NewHampshire Supreme Court ruled:23 See Complaint 122 and 171.31