A vote for tax relief via Amendment 21 essentially boils down to a leap of faith that state policy-makers will compensate rural governments for services otherwise lost as a result of reduced tax revenues.

And according to the measure’s author, Douglas Bruce, the controversial proposal to amend the state constitution would legally force the state to restructure its taxing system in a way that he says is more fair for working-class families.

"There is no way that the state is going to allow all of those local governments to collapse," Bruce said in a telephone interview. "It clearly says in the amendment that with passage the state would replace the revenue. Right now they are holding on to too much of our tax dollars, and the little guy is paying a far larger burden than what is fair."

But Bruce’s assertion that the state, with its $12 billion budget, would be forced to provide the tax revenues lost under Amendment 21 from 1,600 county, city and special districts in Colorado has drawn heated criticism. Local leaders of such entities are skeptical that it would ever happen. They worry that essential services would then disappear or be drastically reduced if the measure passes, and are not convinced that the amendment’s language ensures the replacement funds will flow.

"I know he keeps saying it will, but I can’t figure out how it could, because the TABOR laws would not allow it to happen," said Rick Beisel, a member of the Montezuma County Hospital District board.

Under the so-called Tax Cut 2000 amendment, money collected from property taxes by government entities including special districts, counties and cities would be reduced by $25 the first year, $50 the next year, $75 the next, and so on in perpetuity.

For smaller special districts, like those here offering fire protection, cemetery upkeep, water and sanitation services, the result would be bankruptcy within one to three years if no replacement funds came in.

Therein lies the debate. Proponents say the state will be obligated to replace the funds, or "backfill" for lost revenues. According to the amendment’s text, "tax cuts and state replacement of local revenue shall not lower state or local excess revenue."

That is a red-herring ploy, opponents argue, because taken with Bruce’s voter-approved TABOR Amendment, which limits tax spending, there would not be enough excess revenues to compensate, leaving smaller districts financially damaged, and unable to provide services.

"It could not happen. Where will the state get the extra spending authority to spend the money under TABOR limits?" said Tom Weaver, Montezuma County administrator. "I don’t have faith that the state would; they never have before.

"So there would have to be cuts made in our budget such as for law enforcement, health and tax-assessor services. Services would just disappear and staff would be cut because the general fund is primarily financed by property-tax dollars."

Based on a 6 percent growth limit mandated under TABOR, the state could only retain $318 million worth of increased tax revenues derived from state growth next year. The rest must be returned to property owners unless government entities passed voter-approved resolutions, known as "de-Brucing," allowing them to keep the excess revenue. Critics estimate the total loss to local government coffers from the tax cuts to be $580 million, or far more than what would be made available under the TABOR limits.

Opponents have calculated what the effect would be, without state replacement, on Montezuma County’s 31 governmental entities because of the yearly loss of tax revenues levied on property owners.

For instance, with the tax rebate, Montezuma County’s portion of the budget derived from property taxes would reduce by 9 percent, or from $3,429,247 to $3,115,748, in the first year, according to a University of Colorado study. By the second year the amount would reduced by 16 percent and so on.

More drastic examples opponents cite:

• The Arriola and Lebanon cemetery districts would lose 78 and 84 percent, respectively, of their budget in the first year.

• The city of Cortez would lose 53 percent of its property tax revenues.

• The Montezuma County Hospital District’s budget would drop 42 percent after the first year.

Bruce attributed fears that essential services would vanish to paranoia fueled by "establishment" efforts to cover up special-interest ties with state government. Just as with TABOR, legislation would have to be negotiated, he said, to implement the replacement of tax revenues.

"We heard these same hysterical arguments in 1992 (when TABOR passed). The sky was going to fall, but it survived and even prospered," Bruce said. "If they do not trust the state to arrange to replace the money then they can vote for an offsetting tax increase for their district to offset the loss."

He said eliminating tax breaks and incentives handed out to government contractors would free up revenues that could be more fairly distributed throughout the state, and that tax money garnered from annual growth is either being unfairly used for state projects, or is sitting idle in savings.

But beyond the debate over repayment lies the very real threat against public projects already relying on property-tax revenues, said Bill Smith, manager of the Cortez Sanitation District. He said the $10 million project to expand and improve the city’s waste-disposal system would die on the vine if Amendment 21 passes, because it is based on tax-revenue increases approved by voters.

"It would prevent us from doing our plant replacement and extension," Smith said. "The voters approved a property tax to fund the repayment of the loan, over 20 years. That is the only way we have to pay for it right now, so with most of it going away in the first five years we would not be able to take out the loan and do the project."

Dan Avery, president of the Cortez Chamber of Commerce, sees it this way: "The people already voted to pay for these special districts way back when, as a way to provide the services they chose and need as a community."