Park County District 3 Commissioner Doc McKay addressed, on Monday, the Bulletin's Friday report of expanded de-Bruce language in the 2007 sales tax increase referendum. The resolution to request a 2.5% increase in county sales tax was passed and submitted to ballot by the Board of County Commissioners on September 6, 2007. The ballot text submitted on that date includes language which appears to ask voters to de-Bruce all Park County revenues, giving county officials the ability to spend without limitation.

In an interview on Tuesday, September 18, McKay said that he was not previously aware that the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR*) language in the current question was altered or inconsistent with text used previously in similar tax increase questions. He went on to explain that he immediately contacted the County Attorney on Monday when the question of exempting all other county revenues from spending restrictions, in addition to the new tax, was brought to his attention. After discussing the phrase "AND OTHER REVENUES OF PARK COUNTY" and its implications with the attorney, McKay said he strongly expressed his position that elimination of spending limits on all county revenues was never his intent.

After exploring options, McKay said that he initialed a request to attempt to alter the text, removing the specific six words in question. If successful, this would change the content of the ballot question that was originally submitted by the BOCC. The deadline for submission of ballot issues was September 7.

According to McKay, a new resolution to attempt to revise the text of the sales tax question will not appear on the agenda for the BOCC until Thursday, September 20 - one day prior to the deadline for submitting "pro" and "con" statements for publication in the voter information booklet. However, McKay stated that he and the attorney asked the County Clerk to change the text of the ballot question on Monday, September 17, prior to consideration of a formal resolution by the full board. Commissioners Leni Walker and John Tighe were not in the office.

Following his discussion of the issue with the attorney, McKay said it was suggested that the additional language included might have been "misconstrued" by readers, and that objections might be based on erroneous conclusions as to their meaning. When pressed for a suggestion of how voters might otherwise construe the meaning of "WITH ALL REVENUES FROM SUCH TAX AND OTHER REVENUES OF PARK COUNTY BEING COLLECTED AND SPENT EACH YEAR WITHOUT LIMITATION", McKay did not offer one except to say that he thought the de-Brucing only applied to Road and Bridge revenues. He did insist that the extended language should not have been written into the question and repeated his commitment that he would "never support the increase or de-Brucing of property taxes if I live to be 150." He also stated that the idea of exempting all county revenues was not discussed in any of the meetings he attended.

Questions remain, as of this writing, regarding how the broader language came to be inserted in the referendum and whether a ballot question can be substantively modified in this manner ten days after the deadline for placing issues on the ballot.

The Bulletin will publish additional information when available.