Heads up Sterling and Durango, OSS is coming. Tax credits and SB25-026. SB25-038: anonymity for wildlife damage claims.

Heads up Sterling and Durango, OSS is coming.

Per the CPR article linked first below, the Office of School Safety (OSS) is coming to rural schools to hear the concerns of students. I would have included La Junta in the list above, but by the time I got to this La Junta's time had passed.**

The CPR article gives a pretty decent background about the listening sessions, but I was curious to know how parents could participate should they want to, so I contacted the OSS media person.

After speaking with OSS's Manager of the School Safety Resource Center, Margaret Ochoa, I got some extra background and information on parent participation.

Abstracting from our discussion, I was told the following.

The purpose of the meeting is to collect information from students on their concerns, particularly about their safety. This information is gathered and processed and then is shared with the relevant schools, adults, and the OSS Advisory Board (see the second link below). Parents are not invited, though there will be school chaperones attending (the blurb about the meeting I saw on OSS's site listed 1 adult to 6 kids at least--ah that takes me back to when I taught high school).

When I asked about parents not being invited Ms. Ochoa told me that they made that decision because they felt that the students would not be as open and frank if parents attended the meeting.

This rankled at first (a little), but the more I thought about it, the less it did. I think they have a point. I taught high school for a long time and, as any parent of an adolescent can tell you, what gets shared at home is often different than what gets shared at school. As long as parents get the information about what was shared after, I think I can live with this decision.

If your kids going to a meeting that you as a parent cannot attend, I think probably the best thing for you to do is to contact your local schools (in either Durango or Sterling), and take your concerns to them. Ask for more information. You could contact OSS, but your local schools will be more responsive.

Still plenty of time to do so if you live in either region. The calendar attached as screenshot 1 gives the dates.

**This does not mean that if you live in La Junta that you can't still participate. It just means that you can't get in on the game ahead of time. If you live in the area, I would still contact your local school officials and/or OSS to get information about what they found.

https://www.cpr.org/2025/01/13/state-officials-school-safety-concerns-rural-areas/

https://oss.colorado.gov/about-us/advisory-board

---

Tax credits: who gets them and who's going to lose them if SB25-026 passes?

I saw the bill linked first below in the Center Square article linked second below. I was curious to follow up, having seen the draft bill proposed.

This sort of thing is not the most exciting, nor is it a huge revenue gain or loss. By adding some money back into the state's general fund, it has the possibility to slightly increase TABOR refunds (depending). See screenshot 1, a mashup of two different sections out of the bill's fiscal note.

Tax credits: who gets them and who's going to lose them if SB25-026 passes?

I saw the bill linked first below in the Center Square article linked second below. I was curious to follow up, having seen the draft bill proposed.

This sort of thing is not the most exciting, nor is it a huge revenue gain or loss. By adding some money back into the state's general fund, it has the possibility to slightly increase TABOR refunds (depending). See screenshot 1, a mashup of two different sections out of the bill's fiscal note.

Why put it up here? I put it up because it gives entrée into a concept that is important to know and to pay attention to: who gets the tax breaks and who doesn't in this state.

As far as the bill itself goes, the relevant changes are in screenshot 2.

Tax credits are a way that the government can give money to a particular group. They might be an incentive (say with the tax credit for electric lawn equipment you see here) to drive a behavior, or they might be a straight up gimme where the government just gives money to a group they like. They can be a refund or they can be a way that someone can lessen their tax burden.

Here in Colorado, with our balanced budget and TABOR, they also can affect how much money the government can keep and how much (and to whom) it has to return: remember that TABOR puts a cap on how much money the state can have in its general fund.

Taking this particular bill as an example, you can see from the first screenshot that eliminating some tax breaks for some groups means the state will be taking in more money and thus the amount in the general fund goes up, possibly exceeding the revenue cap under TABOR and thus possibly triggering a refund.

It works the other way too. If the state has an excess in the general fund (or thinks it will) politicians can skirt giving you a refund by giving a tax credit to some other group, effectively lowering the revenue below the TABOR limit.

And that brings us to link #3 below, an Independence Institute report from 2023. This report details Polis' promises on tax reform (and his results--two different things for our governor).

I'll leave it to you to read up in more detail on the topic**, but here are some of the parts relevant to today's topic. Quoting bullet points from the link:

• In 2023 alone, Polis and lawmakers increased special interest tax handouts [what I call government "gimmies" above] by about 2.5 times more than they did in the previous four years combined.

• Legislation adopted in 2023 alone expanded special interest tax benefits on net by $1.64 billion over the next decade, reducing total TABOR refunds by an estimated $465.

• All legislation passed since Polis took office has expanded special interest tax benefits on net for the current fiscal year (FY2023-24) by an estimated $450 million, or $130 per income tax filer. Legislation adopted in 2023 alone expanded special interest tax benefits on net for FY2023-24 by about $320 million, or about $90 per income tax filer.

• Legislation adopted in 2023 expanded special interest tax benefits on net for FY2024-25 by about $200 million, or about $56 per income tax filer.

Even though tax policy may not be as sexy as other issues, I hope you can see how fundamentally critical it is. The decisions those in charge make around who gets tax breaks and who doesn't affect more than just those getting the breaks (or not). It all too often affects us all.

**You might, in particular, be interested to see just how committed our governor has been to actually reducing the tax burden Colorado puts on citizens vs. how much he talks about this commitment. That's in there.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-026

https://www.thecentersquare.com/colorado/article_150c785c-be1e-11ef-83f6-eb24895b7793.html

https://i2i.org/colorado-tax-expenditure-modifications-2023/

---

SB25-038: ensuring anonymity for those that submit wildlife damage claims.

I recently wrote and posted an open letter to a Colorado Sun reporter and State Senator Dylan Roberts over their comments on the Wolf Tracker FB page.

In that letter, I called out Senator Roberts for his lack of tangible action on some of the more unsavory aspects of wolf reintroduction. I stand by those words, but fairness also dictates taking note of the efforts that he does undertake.

On top of that I wanted to present you a bill which I think you should advocate for.

SB25-038 is linked first below and is sponsored by Sen Roberts and Rep McCluskie. Stripping away the more technical language, the upshot here is that the bill protects the identity of those who put in claims with the state for monetary damage by wildlife.

E.g. if you put in a claim for wolf depredation, this bill would require that your personal information is kept confidential and cannot be disclosed by open records requests.

This is a good idea and thus it is a bill I intend to advocate for. I have already signed up to testify on 1/30 at 1:30PM and suggest you do the same. I will also add the email I wrote and sent to committee members/sponsors below the links at the bottom of this page in case I am unable to testify remotely. If any part of that is helpful to you, please feel free to use it.

Before I wrap up, in case you find it helpful in advocating, I want to motivate the need for this bill. The second and third link below are to a WyoFile (a left-leaning Wyoming newspaper--think of it as the Wyoming equivalent of the Colorado Sun) article on wolf hunters and an op ed by Rachel Gabel.

I attached quotes from these articles as screenshots 1 and 2 (from WyoFile and Gabel respectively).

What you will note in both quotes is neatly summed up by the last statement in the WyoFile quote: "... his [the hunter's] fear of harassment is not unwarranted."

It's illegal to hunt wolves in Colorado of course, but I believe this fear of harassment (especially when you couple that with the words used by wolf advocates in Gabel) nonetheless extends to people in Colorado who do follow the law and would seek their due from wolf depredation or other wildlife damage.

There is bad blood on both sides of the wolf introduction issue. There are vitriol and strong language too. For those that want to engage in that, they are welcome.

My concern here, the reason I support this policy, is for those that simply want to live their lives, run their businesses, and not suffer undue loss. The ability to file claims and have them reviewed without fear of harassment or intimidation (or, frankly, involvement with a nosy media) helps meet the needs of those people.

My email to the sponsors and committee follows the link.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-038

https://wyofile.com/border-killings-how-shooters-lured-historic-colorado-wolves-to-their-deaths-in-wyoming/

https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/why-do-they-hate-ranchers-so-much-gabel/article_b3b19e04-d081-11ef-9ca6-3b0e35ed409b.html#google_vignette




An open email in support of SB25-038 to the sponsors and the Senate Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee.


Hello all,

My name is Cory Gaines. I am a resident of Logan County.

I am writing this email (I hope to testify as well at the hearing on the 30th, but figure a backstop is warranted in case I can't make it) in support of SB25-038,Wildlife Damage Protection of Personal Information


Ever since the vote on wolf reintroduction, there has been hard feelings on both sides of the debate. From people in high places like the First Gentleman on down to ranchers on social media, the rhetoric has been at times nasty, and vitriolic. There are some for whom that sort of engagement is sport and entertainment. To those people, I say God bless.
My concern is for the people that want to engage on this issue in a frank and civil manner, and especially for those that simply want to live their lives, run their businesses, and not be unduly harmed by things that they have little to no say in. It is for them that I write in.
SB25-038 would help the people I mention above because it would allow them to seek their legal due without fear of harassment, intimidation, and/or fear of a media often more interested in spectacle than common sense who would thoughtlessly splash their name everywhere.

Fears like these are not unfounded. Quoting from a Jan 13 op ed by Rachel Gabel, who listened to the entirety of the public testimony at the January 8 -- 9 CPW meeting, "I listened to anti-agriculture commenters blame ranchers for hating wildlife, refusing to cooperate, refusing to submit to the inevitable, refusing to take on the additional work of stringing fladry in snowdrifts." and from later in the editorial, "I listened to commenters blame ranchers for refusing to take financial losses. I listened to claims the ranchers are entitled bullies. And I listened to commenters name specific ranchers during their vitriol."

It doesn't take a genius to figure that, in an environment like this, someone who didn't find pleasure in conflict might be inclined to avoid any attention, even if that attention would come from seeking their legal due. This is not okay.

I urge a yes vote on this bill to protect those who might otherwise be afraid of speaking up and taking what they're owed from wildlife damage due to the vitriol of others.

Thank you.

C