School spending numbers might seem eye-popping at first glance, but there are hundreds of thousands of students, school facilities ought to be sound and safe, schools need security, teachers need adequate pay, and there’s more. Prop NN would improve school funding in Colorado, no doubt.

At its simplest, passing Proposition NN would allow the State of Colorado to retain and spend tax revenue collected in quantities above the current Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) cap. The new state revenue would be spent on programs including K-12 education, “programs that benefit children,” and reimbursements to local governments to meet homestead property tax exemption expenses. There will be much more about the actual numbers later in this post.

Prop NN is a statutory measure, not a Constitutional amendment, and would pass with a simple majority of 50% (plus one) or more of the vote. This is the only measure that was referred by the Colorado General Assembly to voters on this year’s ballot.

How Did Prop NN Reach the Ballot?

The Colorado General Assembly put Prop NN on the ballot by passing Senate Bill 26-135. The bill passed the Senate on a straight party-line 23-12 vote, with all Democratic senators voting yes and all Republicans voting no. It passed the House by 42-21, once again on a straight party-line vote with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition.

TABOR Cap and Revenue Factors

Grossly simplified, TABOR sets a cap on the amount of revenue a government can retain and spend. But if revenue collections come in above that cap, the government in question must refund money to taxpayers or otherwise adjust, like for example decreasing tax rates to make up for the “excess.” This applies to all levels of tax-funded governments in Colorado – local districts, cities, and counties – not just the state.

However, voters can pass ballot measures to adjust TABOR caps or even exempt governments from needing to issue TABOR refunds. One of the most major adjustments to the state TABOR cap came in 2005, with the passage of the voter-approved Referendum C, which granted the state a five-year “TABOR time-out” and reset the TABOR cap. Revenue was primarily to be spent on K-12 education, healthcare, and higher education.

In 2026, passing Prop NN would once again reset the TABOR cap. The amount of possible TABOR refunds can differ from year to year, but this chart from the state Blue Book anticipates that there would be no TABOR refunds in 2027 or 2028 if Prop NN passes. If revenue collected should exceed the new TABOR cap set under Prop NN in future years, there could still be TABOR refunds.

K-12 Education Stats

The FY 2025-25 K-12 education total program funding was about $10.2 billion, per the state’s School Finance Act bill (Senate Bill 26-023 this year). K-12 funding in Colorado is split between state and local sources, with about $5.6 billion coming from the state and $4.6 billion from primarily local property taxes.

While there are many sources ranking education statistics by state, the bullet points below are taken from a lengthy National Education Association (NEA) webpage, available at this link: https://www.nea.org/resource-library/educator-pay-and-student-spending-how-does-your-state-rank/teacher

  • NEA: Colorado 19th in average teacher pay 2024-25
  • NEA: Colorado 24th in revenue receipts per student, 2024-25
  • NEA: Colorado 27th in expenditures per student ($18,270), 2024-25

The Prop NN proponents are using graphics saying Colorado ranks 43rd in K-12 funding, earning an “F” grade, but these stats might be a few years old since they come from EducationWeek’s State Grades on School Finance, which EducationWeek no longer does. Generally, education stats are not completely current and might be a couple years old like NEA’s. It’s a lot of data to deal with quickly.

In the text for SB 26-135, the legislative declaration mentions two studies the legislature used to assess Colorado education funding adequacy. They’re both long, but education geeks might find them interesting:

* Equity and Adequacy of Colorado School Funding, American Institutes for Research: https://air.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/Colorado-Adequacy-Study-Final-Report-December-2024.pdf
* Colorado Input-Based Financial Adequacy Study, by Augenblick, Palaich and Associates: https://www.apaconsulting.com/past-projects/blog-post-title-two-y234y-2fn4f-tdxff-raw8d-2pgxj?rq=colorado%20financial%20adequacy%20study

How Would Prop NN Impact TABOR Calculations?

Sorry, this is geeky. But Prop NN would allow the TABOR cap to increase by the amount of spending on specified education programs called “public education funding” for this measure’s purposes, described below.

Per the fiscal note for SB 26-135, state public education funding includes “appropriations for the state share of total program and categorical programs from the General Fund, and the Kids Matter Account within the State Education Fund (SEF). It does not include spending from the SEF that is already exempt from TABOR under Amendment 23 or from the State Public School Fund, which receives various sources of TABOR-exempt revenue.”

Or, maybe the only thing most readers will care about is that Prop NN would increase the TABOR cap next year by about $4.6 billion.

It’s absolutely possible that the state won’t collect enough revenue to reach the TABOR cap in any given year, and this has happened in the past. For the coming year, projections in the state Blue Book say even with the new limit, the state is probably likely to collect about $500 million above the old TABOR cap. This $500 million might have gone toward TABOR refunds (see the chart above), but if Prop NN passes it will go toward the items mentioned at the start of this post.

The Positive Factor

During the so-called “Great Recession” from about 2008-2010, the state invented a Negative Factor which under its School Finance formula actually allowed Colorado to fund K-12 at less than Constitutional requirements under Amendment 23. Readers really don’t need to know this for Prop NN but it sets the stage.

Passing Prop NN would create a new state “Positive Factor.” For the next 10 years, this factor would equal 2% of the state’s “program foundation,” defined in the fiscal note as “the state share of school finance until the new school finance formula is fully phased in.” Each year, the positive factor would increase by the prior year’s positive factor. In FY 2036-37, the positive factor would stay constant at the level of the FY 2035-36 positive factor.

Opposition Points

The conservative think tank Common Sense Institute will almost always prepare a report warning of consequences when there are ballot measures like Prop NN. But that doesn’t mean they should be ignored, though it’s up to readers. According to CSI’s report (linked here), passing Prop NN and allowing the government to spend the associated money would lead to the following results over the next two years:

  • A total-employment loss between 46 and 2,227 jobs
  • A private-employment loss between 460 and 2,056 jobs
  • Between $12 million and $120 million of lost GDP
  • A loss of economic output between $34 million and $244 million
  • An impact on personal income of between -$376 million and $473 million

Proponents:

  • Yes to Colorado Kids has formed to support Prop NN. As of Oct. 6, it had reported $5,116,940 in total contributions, including $3 million from National Education Association (Washington DC-based), $1 million from Gary Advocacy LLC $1 million, and $960,000 from Colorado Fund for Children and Public Education.

Opponents: Five committees are listed in opposition to Prop NN on the Secretary of State’s website.

  • A Brighter Colorado opposes NN but also Amendment 87. It has received $2,612,150.00 in total contributions, including a non-itemized report from Oct. 6 of $2,305,525.00 in contributions, $250,000 from McLean, Virginia-based Common Sense America, and $100,000 from Colorado Dawn.
  • Don’t Price Us Out has reported $1,060,000 in total contributions as of Oct. 6, including $760,000 from American Prosperity Coalition from Euless, Texas, and $300,000 from Ready Colorado.
  • Affordable Colorado has reported $9,858.60 in non-monetary contributions.
  • The other two committees Let’s Go Colorado and Keep Colorado Affordable, have not reported contributions.

Links to More Information

Richard’s Take

I’ll probably vote “yes” on Prop NN, but won’t predict a blowout victory.

I once co-sponsored Prop 103 (though Sen. Rollie Heath did 10 times the work I did), a ballot measure that would have better funded K-12 education, and one thing that I already knew really leapt to the front of my mind in 2011 when we ran the measure. It was that I owe much of the success and income I’ve had during my adult working life to education – though my parents get a lot of the credit for my readiness for elementary school! I should add that I’ve worked in jobs not directly related to my studies, but I learned how to do these jobs better and faster thanks in some measure to the disciplines I gained through formal education.

This general point has to be true for many of us, whether we actually think about what we did in school anymore or not. Early education gives us our building blocks of readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmatic. We move on to more detailed studies the farther we go in education, and learn about places and disciplines many of us would never encounter without school. And with things like better teachers, top-notch classroom equipment, smaller class sizes, and good facilities, a student can get better quality education that sticks with them for life. Again, some of it might be subconscious.

However, Prop 103 lost. I personally spoke in a few locations that weren’t anything like Boulder politically, and got a few not-so-nice comments after speaking before people who did not want a tax increase. Prop NN is not technically a tax increase, but losing a TABOR refund is losing some money, even if it’s not gigantic. I’ll criticize the totality of TABOR until my dying day, but I do know lots of people appreciate the right to vote on taxes and having a formula in place that limits governmental spending. Hence, I don’t expect a NN blowout victory.

A lot of my support for NN stems from that I believe education is a core responsibility of government. Some Boulderites might not know this, but the state funds a higher percentage of education in areas that don’t have a large tax base – local property taxes won’t properly fund schools in some rural areas, so the state sort of has to step in. Sure, we could risk having “education deserts” in rural areas, with schools scarce and far apart, and lacking teachers or good facilities. But I don’t want that and I hope readers don’t either.

Whether Prop NN is the only solution or not is fair to ponder. I will not deny that losing TABOR refunds will add up to real money over time, unless state revenues dry up and even the old TABOR cap becomes a moot point. I had some very good TABOR refunds just a few years ago, and I won’t be saying that even small refunds won’t help some people with a minor purchase or two.

It’s a bit of a moral choice along with a financial decision. I’ll respect people who wrestle with the issue a bit and come to an informed decision, no matter on which side they land.