State of Colorado: Two ballot measures: LL & MM

 

Colorado's 2025 ballot features Propositions LL and MM, both addressing funding for the state's Healthy School Meals for All program. Proposition LL seeks to use existing surplus funds to pay for Colorado’s Healthy School Meals for All program, while Proposition MM would raise new revenue by adjusting tax deductions for high-income earners. (The main difference between these two propositions is that LL proposes to retain past revenue and MM proposes to collect new revenue.) 

 

Proposition LL: Retain and Spend State Revenue Exceeding the Estimate for Proposition FF.  Placed on the ballot by the legislature. Passes with a majority vote. Proposition LL, if approved, would: 

● allow the state to keep and spend $12.4 million in tax revenue, including interest, that has already been collected under Proposition FF for the Healthy School Meals for All Program, rather than refunding it to households earning $300,000 or more annually; and 

● maintain current tax deduction limits for households earning $300,000 or more annually, which would otherwise be modified for 2026 to lower the taxes paid by these households. 

● purchasing products grown, raised, and processed in Colorado to include in school meals; 

● increasing wages or providing stipends for employees who prepare and serve school meals; and 

● offering training, equipment, and technical assistance to help prepare healthy school meals using basic, nutritious ingredients, and to support collaboration between schools, communities, and local food growers.

 

Proposition MM: Increase State Taxes for the Healthy School Meals for All Program. Placed on the ballot by the legislature. Passes with a majority vote. Proposition MM, if approved, would: 

● increase state income taxes paid by households earning $300,000 or more annually; and 

● use the new tax revenue to increase funding for the Healthy School Meals for All Program in order to continue offering free meals to all K-12 public school students in Colorado, rather than restricting eligibility to only low-income students and schools. 

● purchasing products grown, raised, and processed in Colorado to include in school meals; ● increasing wages or providing stipends for employees who prepare and serve school meals; and 32 33 2nd Draft - 2 - ● offering training, equipment, and technical assistance to help prepare healthy school meals using basic, nutritious ingredients, and to support collaboration between schools, communities, and local food growers.

 

What Your Vote Means: A “yes” vote on Proposition MM increases state income taxes for households earning $300,000 or more annually. The increased tax revenue will be used to offer free meals to all public school students and to fund grant programs previously approved by voters that have not yet been implemented for increasing school meal staff salaries and purchasing local foods. A “no” vote on Proposition MM keeps state income taxes for households earning $300,000 or more annually unchanged, and limits free meals to only low income students and schools.

​

Helpful articles on these propositions: 

 

https://coloradonewsline.com/2025/09/29/colorado-election-2025-school-meals/

​

Here’s another!

 

San Miguel County: Two ballot measures: 1A & 1B

 

1A Early Childhood Education Fund and Mental Health Services Fund:

1A was placed on the ballot by the San Miguel County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) and asks voters if they are willing to override the recent state law (SB24-233), which limits the increase in property tax revenues that can be collected by statutory counties, cities, towns and most special districts to 5.25% or less annually. The law was passed by the Colorado legislature in 2024 and takes effect in 2026. It does not apply to home rule towns or school districts.

 

If passed by county voters, 1A would allow the full collection of the 0.75 mill levies for the Early Childhood and Mental Health Funds’ mill levies that San Miguel County’s voters approved in 2017 and 2018, respectively. This would not be an increase in tax rates, but a “housekeeping” measure to ensure stable funding.

 

Under SB24-233, these funds, as well as all other county funds, would be required to lower their mill levy rate to below the voter-approved level and they would not be able to capture more than 5.25% additional revenue, regardless of the increase in assessed valuation (which is approximately 22% in the past year for San Miguel County). In the case of these two funds, they would both be limited to a mill levy of 0.664 in 2026.

 

If 1A does not pass, both of the commissioner-appointed advisory panels that direct the Early Childhood and Mental Health Funds have indicated that they would not be able to adequately address the challenges of childcare and behavioral health in San Miguel County. For childcare, this funding problem is largely a result of state and federal funding cuts. For behavioral health, our community needs continue to grow, so additional funds are needed.  In fact, for 2026, the Mental Health Fund received $765k in grant requests, but has only $450k available for awards, at the same time as a recently completed Behavioral Health Strategic Plan identified county-wide gaps in local behavioral health services.

 

In 2025 each fund received $953,568. Both are eligible to capture an additional $46,280 under the new law. If voters approve 1A, it would allow the full collection of the 0.75 mill levies, and provide an additional $129,498 to each fund that could be spent on additional services to local residents.

 

Q: If voters already approved funds for Early Childhood Education and Mental Health Services, why do we need this?

A: A new state law caps how much local mill levies can collect each year. Without voter approval to waive this cap, our Early Childhood and Mental Health funds will no longer receive the full .75 mills that voters originally approved. This does not impact school district, fire, library, or other special district mill levies in our county.

 

1B  San Miguel County Road and Bridge Fund:

1B was placed on the ballot by the San Miguel County Board of Commissioners and asks voters a two-part question:  First, if they would memorialize the county’s current practice of allocating 1.4 mills from the general fund to the voter-approved 0.5 mills for the Road and Bridge Fund, maintaining the current total of 1.9 mills to fund road maintenance. This would not be an increase in tax rates, but a “housekeeping” measure to ensure stable funding for roads. 

This fund benefits those in incorporated SMC as well as unincorporated areas. By state statute, approximately 30% of all property taxes collected for road and bridge services in San Miguel County are proportionately shared with Telluride, Norwood, Ophir and Mt Village.

The second part of 1B is similar to question 1A.  It asks voters to override the 5.25% revenue increase limit set by SB24-233 and allow the county to continue to collect the historic 1.9 mills to fund road maintenance., If 1B passes, it would allow collection of an additional $328,633 for road maintenance.  If 1B does not pass, it would result in only 1.682 mills for road maintenance.

 

With increases in traffic volume throughout the county, the Road and Bridge Department has been struggling to keep up with demands for service. Passage of 1B will allow much needed funds to maintain and improve county and town roadways. 

Question 1B does not increase the mill levy. It asks voters to let R/B keep the full revenue already approved by voters years ago to attempt to keep up with growing demands on the R/B department. But it would be an increase in taxes to each taxpayer over last year. Specifically, if IB passes, it will mean $1.49 additional tax per $100k of residential home value. (So if your home is assessed at $1million, your R&B tax increase would be $14.90.) 

 

Helpful articles:
 

Daily Planet article by Commissioner Waring

​

News story about 1A and 1B 

​

Town of Telluride: Four ballot referendum measures: 2A, 2B, 2C & Question 300

 

2A Lift Ticket Tax:

This proposed 5% excise tax on ski lift tickets applies to day tickets, not season passes, and as such is aimed at non-locals. The tax seeks to address Telski’s broken commitment to contribute 4.5 % of lift ticket sales to gondola and San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) bus expenses. The tax would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026.

 

2B Authorization to Increase Town Debt for Affordable Housing:

Question 2B would authorize an increase of $64.05 million in the town’s debt limit to enable the town to borrow more money for various affordable housing purposes. The repayment cost would be a maximum of $132.205 million. It is not a tax or fee increase, rather it updates how the Town can borrow, using money already approved by the voters.

 

2C Town Referred Charter Amendments:

Regarding attendance of council members. This amendment to the Town Charter would call for the removal from office of any councilmember failing to attend three consecutive regular town council meetings or failing to attend at least 75% of the council meetings over a 12-month period. The removal could be overturned by a supermajority of council, or five of the remaining six members.

 

Question 300 Citizen’s Initiated Charter Amendment:

Measure 300 requires voter approval when the Town of Telluride initiates a construction project, either independently or in partnership with any governmental entity, subdivision, authority, or district, if the project exceeds $10 million in cost.

 

Argument in favor of Measure 300:

The $10 million threshold is based on project size and cost per square foot. While the Town has not recently updated its construction cost estimates (currently $650 per square foot), San Miguel County has set updated figures: $727 per square foot, soon increasing to $928. Depending on which rate the Town uses, the square footage limit before triggering a vote varies:​

• $650/sq. ft. = 15,384 sq. ft.
   

• $727/sq. ft. = 13,755 sq. ft.
   

• $928/sq. ft. = 10,775 sq. ft.
   

Measure 300 also ensures that if a project is estimated just below the $10 million mark but could reasonably exceed it, it must still go to a public vote.

This measure guarantees transparency and accountability in public spending. Voters will see comprehensive financial details upfront, including total costs, debt obligations, and anticipated revenue. It also allows residents to assess whether proposed "affordable housing" projects are truly affordable and in the public’s best interest.

 

Argument against Measure 300: 

Requiring voter approval for every large project, such as a medical center, wastewater treatment plant, water projects, or workforce housing, may seem democratic, but it can lead to expensive elections, harmful delays, outsized influence by special interests, and poor decision-making. 

 

Most voters don’t have the time to fully research proposals, nor access to the full technical and financial details needed to evaluate complex infrastructure projects. As a result, decisions may be based on emotion, limited facts, or political pressure rather than measured analysis. It also shifts accountability away from elected officials who are chosen to make informed decisions on the public’s behalf, to a politicized system vulnerable to misinformation and special interests. 

 

Putting every major expenditure to a vote of the public introduces costly delays, as election cycles rarely align with urgent needs or market conditions. Projects could be stalled for years, driving up costs and weakening the town’s ability to respond effectively to community needs.

 

A better path toward government accountability is in active civic engagement, through public meetings, hearings, and communication with elected officials within the framework of representative democracy.

​

Helpful article:
 

Article outlining the support for and opposition to 300

​

Town of Mountain Village: One ballot question

​

Ski Ticket Tax:

Mirrors Telluride’s lift ticket tax question to impose a 5% excise tax on ski lift tickets to ; does not apply to season passes. he tax seeks to address Telski’s broken commitment to contribute 4.5 % of lift ticket sales to gondola and San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) bus expenses.

 

Town of Norwood: School District & one ballot measure

​

Three candidates are running for two seats:

​

Brandi Griffith

Randy L. Harris

Jayne Samantha Jacobs

 

Norwood School District R-2J Ballot Issue 5A: Best Bond

Norwood School District is asking voters to consider Bond Measure 5A, which would authorize $8 million in local funding as a required match for a $52 million state grant awarded through Colorado’s BEST (Building Excellent Schools Today) program. The combined $60 million project would replace Norwood’s existing preschool–12th grade buildings—some of which date back to 1958—with a single, modern PK–12 facility. The district reports that many current systems, including heating, ventilation, and modular classrooms added in the 1990s and early 2000s, are past their usable lifespan and lack current safety and accessibility standards.

​

If approved, the bond would apply to all property owners within the district. Estimated costs are approximately $6.40 per month for every $100,000 of residential actual value, and $23 per month per $100,000 for commercial properties. Agricultural tax impacts vary by land classification. The district reduced its original match requirement from $10.6 million to $8 million by securing waivers and applying $600,000 from reserves, and reports it continues to pursue additional outside funding sources.

​

The district selected the replacement plan after evaluating renovation options, which it concluded would cost more per square foot while extending building life by only 15–20 years versus 50–60 years for new construction. If the bond does not pass, the $52 million grant would be forfeited, and the district would need to continue operating existing facilities with increasing maintenance costs.

​

Informative opinion piece about it by SM County Commissioner Galena Gleason