As important as the state measures are, your local ballot measures often have an even larger impact on your life and community. On this page you will find a simplified explanation of each measure in your county and/or town, a bit about what proponents and opponents of each measure have to say, and the position our Alliance’s local affiliate has taken on each. We encourage every voter to weigh the information and make their own decision. You can also download our house party guide to learn how to share this great information with your friends and neighbors and get access to our physical ballot guide specific to your county that you can provide to anyone you know who may have questions about this year’s long and confusing ballot.
Garfield Re-2 Measure 4A
Measure 4A would provide Garfield Re-2 with about $4.7 million per year in additional, locally controlled revenue to improve employee compensation and help recruit and retain teachers and other school staff. The money would support approximately 6% raises for district employees, including teachers, paraprofessionals, bus drivers, custodians, cooks, and other staff. The estimated property tax cost is $38.03 per year for every $100,000 of home value, or about $190 per year for a $500,000 home. 4A is a mill levy override rather than a new tax rate increase.
Supporters say:
Proponents argue that 4A is necessary to help Garfield Re-2 recruit and retain teachers and other school employees because the district competes with neighboring districts and local employers that can offer higher wages. The district says the roughly $4.7 million in annual local funding would go directly toward employee base salaries, including teachers, paraprofessionals, bus drivers, custodians, and nutrition-service workers. Supporters also argue that keeping experienced staff benefits students through greater continuity and stability.
Opponents say:
Opponents’ counterargument is that 4A is an ongoing property tax increase, so voters would have to decide whether the additional employee compensation is worth the added cost to property owners. A recent regional voter guide describes it as a $4.7 million-a-year property tax increase for teacher/staff pay, while the district frames the money as an investment in competitive compensation.
Our Alliance's position:
We encourage voters to vote YES on Garfield Re-2 Measure 4A.
Garfield Re-2 Measure 4B
Measure 4B would reauthorize the district’s existing bond tax rate without increasing that rate and use the resulting bond funding for major school and facility projects. Proposed projects include STEM and science improvements and a new access road at Rifle High School, career/technical education and other additions at Coal Ridge High School, a new early-childhood center in Silt, and approximately 40–50 rental units for district staff. The bond cannot be used for employee salaries and is intended instead for long-term capital improvements. The specific project designs and final scopes would be determined through public planning and Board approval if the measure passes.
Supporters say:
Proponents argue that 4B would allow the district to address significant long-term facility and community needs without increasing the existing bond tax rate. The proposed projects include a new Rifle High School access road, renovated science and engineering spaces, expanded career-and-technical education facilities at Coal Ridge High School, a new early-learning center, and staff rental housing. Supporters say these investments address safety, career preparation, early-childhood needs, and the district’s difficulty recruiting employees in an expensive housing market.
Opponents say:
The main potential concern is that bond financing creates a long-term financial obligation, even though the district describes 4B as maintaining the current bond tax rate rather than imposing a new tax. Critics could therefore focus on whether the proposed projects — including staff housing and the early-learning center — are the most appropriate uses of additional borrowing capacity and whether the district should take on the associated debt. The district says the board would use the bond for capital projects and cannot use bond money for salaries.
Our Alliance's position:
We encourage voters to vote YES on Garfield Re-2 Measure 4B.
Garfield County Libraries Mill Extension 6B
This measure would allow the district to continue collecting an existing 1.0-mill property-tax levy after it expires in 2027, with no new increase to the current tax rate. The original levy, approved by voters in 2006, helped pay for improvements and expansion of the county’s six library facilities and is scheduled to expire when the related debt is paid off. If approved, the levy would continue indefinitely beginning in 2028, with the money used for library building maintenance and repairs, staffing, books and technology, programs, and other library services.
Supporters say:
Supporters say it would continue an existing 1.0-mill property-tax levy rather than increase the tax rate. The levy, approved in 2006, is scheduled to expire after 2027 when the debt associated with the library-building improvements is paid off. Supporters argue that keeping the levy would provide roughly $1 million a year for ongoing building maintenance and repairs, staffing, books and technology, and library programs and services. They also emphasize that residents would continue paying roughly $38 per year based on the median assessed home value, rather than seeing that mill disappear and then potentially needing another funding source later.
Opponents say:
In the past there has been criticism of the library’s finances and priorities. One criticism questions whether the library needs to continue the tax given its existing reserves and financial management, and raised concerns about transparency and how money is being spent. The library support campaign responded that the district publishes its finances, undergoes annual audits, and needs the recurring revenue because relying on reserves or volatile sales-tax revenue could make future funding less predictable.
Our Alliance's position:
We encourage voters to vote YES on Garfield County Libraries Mill Extension 6B.
City of Rifle Lodging Tax Increase
Rifle’s lodging tax measure would increase the city’s existing lodging tax by three percentage points, from 2.5% to 5.5%, on hotels, short-term rentals, and other accommodations rented for fewer than 30 days. The city estimated the increase would generate about $325,000 annually, with the money used primarily for visitor improvements and attractions, historic preservation, special events, beautification projects, and promoting Rifle and its surrounding area. The measure is structured as a voter-approved revenue change, meaning the additional revenue could be collected despite TABOR limits. The city argues the tax is paid primarily by visitors rather than Rifle residents and that Rifle’s rate has remained unchanged since voters approved the original 2.5% tax in 2007.
Supporters say:
Rifle city officials and supporters argue that increasing the lodging tax to 5.5% would bring in about $325,000 annually, with the money dedicated to visitor improvements and attractions, historic preservation, special events, beautification, and promotion of Rifle. They emphasize that the tax applies to short-term lodging of fewer than 30 days, so the direct tax is primarily paid by visitors rather than local residents. Rifle Planning Director Zach Higgins also argued that much of the lodging is used by travelers passing through on I-70 and that the additional revenue could strengthen programs such as downtown façade improvements, community events, and other economic-development projects.
Opponents say:
The measure is still a tax increase and could make lodging in Rifle more expensive. Critics of lodging-tax increases generally argue that higher costs could discourage visitors or reduce tourism, and that cities should consider whether existing revenues are being spent efficiently before asking for additional taxes. A broader Colorado lodging tax opponent, Don Sheehan, made that argument regarding similar measures, questioning whether higher lodging costs could ultimately reduce tourism. A similar measure was narrowly rejected by voters in 2025, with just over 51% voting against it.
Our Alliance's position:
Our Alliance supports the City of Rifle Lodging Tax Increase.
