Yes on Prop. 110: we can have it all

Colorado voters face a difficult question on the ballot this November — does the state need more money to “fix our damn roads” or simply the directive to do so with existing resources?

We dug into the numbers, and are convinced the state does indeed need additional revenue.

We urge voters to approve the sales tax increase in Proposition 110 to fund $6 billion in road projects, at both the local and state level, for the next 20 years.

It’s not an easy ask given that state revenue is growing at such a tremendous pace.

Compared to fiscal year 201718, the general fund revenue is expected to increase by $537 million (after $113 million is given back to taxpayers) next year, by $1.2 billion in fiscal year 201920 and $1.7 billion in 202021. Certainly there’s room in that growth to make additional investments in our transportation needs.

But we think this state deserves safe efficient transportation and adequately funded K12 schools, higher education institutions, child welfare advocacy agencies, health insurance for lowincome families, and state patrol and other public safety programs.

Our state, especially in areas away from the Front Range, needs to invest more money in education. Rural and Western Slope schools are struggling. Some have switched to fourday school weeks. Our state invests less public dollars in higher education than almost every other state, and complicated measures controlling taxes and spending, especially the Gallagher Amendment, will leave the state backfilling schools and local districts hundreds of millions of dollars for reductions in property taxes in coming years.

By creating a dedicated revenue stream to begin addressing a $9 billion backlog in transportation projects, voters will free up the General Assembly to spend growing general fund dollars on other priorities across the state (our state lawmakers will not be able to raid the funds generated by Proposition 110).

And we are impressed with how the advocates of Proposition 110 have required the money to be spent: 45 percent will go to the Colorado Department of Transportation for their toppriority projects; 40 percent will go to local governments for projects that will be determined by each community; and 15 percent will go to multimodal transportation projects identified on a regional level.

The sales tax increase, while not insignificant, is much more modest than the 1 cent increase some were seeking.

By increasing statewide sales taxes from 2.9 percent to 3.52 percent, voters will gener ate an additional $766 million in revenue the first year to make payments on $6 billion in bonds authorized under the ballot measure.

For a household at the bottom of the economic scale, making about $13,000 a year, it was estimated by nonpartisan legislative staff that the sales tax increase will cost an additional $50, for a family making about $74,000 it’ll be about $131 and for a family making $190,000 it will be about $250.

But the benefits will effect everyone in a positive way. Less time sitting in traffic will mean more time at work or at play and less money spent on gasoline burned in bumpertobumper traffic.

Because so much of this investment is dedicated to local roads, every community should be positively impacted, not just the Front Range.

And finally this investment is recession proof: While sales tax revenue will go down if the economy tanks, it won’t disappear. That’s the inherent danger behind the other transportation ballot question — Proposition 109 — which would require the state to borrow $3.5 billion in 2019 to fund 66 highway projects.

Jon Caldara, the president of the Independence Institute and the backer of Proposition 109, isn’t wrong when he says the growing general fund revenue would allow the state to easily cover the estimated annual repayment cost of $260 million for the bonds in Proposition 109 without a revenue source. But if there’s a recession and the estimated growth in revenue never occurs, the state will still be required to pay that $260 million every year, regardless of other needs.

The result would be what we’ve seen before — K12 education funding will stop keeping up with inflation and population growth and higher education and other critical government services will be slashed.

It’s risky.

Colorado voters are presented this year with a straightforward proposal to modestly raise taxes and, inonefellswoop, fund transportation needs for the next 20 years. Now is the time to make that investment.