Colorado voters on Nov. 6 will determine the fate of two ballot initiatives that would provide different levels of funding for transportation projects throughout the state.
Mike McVaugh, Region 5 transportation director for the Colorado Department of Transportation, spoke to a small crowd Wednesday at Cortez City Hall to answer questions and present the facts surrounding Proposition 109 and Proposition 110.
As a state employee, McVaugh cannot advocate for either initiative, but he can paint a picture of CDOT’s finances. He said the state gas tax has not increased since 1991. Colorado gathers 22 cents per gallon, and the federal government collects 18.4 cents per gallon. But over the past 27 years, vehicle efficiency has greatly improved so the average driver is buying fewer gallons of gas today — which means less funding for CDOT.
“The comparison I give to people is in 1991 I had a 1985 Chevy that got 9 miles to the gallon,” McVaugh said. “Today, I have a 2003 Chevy that gets 20 miles to the gallon.”
He said CDOT is putting more money these days into maintaining infrastructure and, because of dwindling revenue, there is no money to expand and reconstruct roads. That’s where Proposition 109 and Proposition 110 come into play.
According to a CDOT factsheet, Proposition 109 would dedicate existing general funds to provide one-time funding up to $3.5 billion for transportation investment through a bond repayable over 20 years. It would replace $1.5 billion in existing funding, providing a net increase of $2 billion.
Proposition 110 is more extensive. It would raise the sales tax by 0.62 percent to provide $767 million in the first year and allow Colorado to bond for up to $6 million over 20 years, for a total net increase of $7 billion over current state law.
Each proposition has strings attached. All the revenue from Proposition 109 would be dedicated to state highways. Proposition 110, on the other hand, would allocate 45 percent to state highways, 20 percent to cities, 20 percent to counties and 15 percent to transit, bicycle and pedestrian needs.
In a unique situation this year, there is a chance voters could adopt both propositions, only one or neither. McVaugh said that if voters approve both 109 and 110, the state courts would review both and determine if there is a conflict. If there is conflict, the courts could adopt the proposition with the most votes.
If approved, the two propositions would have different impacts on Southwest Colorado. Proposition 109 would fund four projects in Montezuma and La Plata counties, including passing lanes and vehicle turnouts on U.S. Highway 160 in Towaoc, improvements on U.S. 160 improvements near Durango and a major reconstruction of U.S. Highway 550 south of Durango.
Proposition 110 would fund more regional projects compared with Proposition 109. It would bring six projects to La Plata County and four projects to Montezuma County, including passing lanes on U.S. 160 in Towaoc, a reconstruction of eight miles of U.S. 160, improvements to Main Street in Cortez and several improvements to U.S. 550 near Durango.
In an interview after the presentation, Montezuma County resident Jim Richards said he felt something was needed, but he’s still processing the pros and cons of the two propositions.
“The roads in Colorado in my opinion is not too bad, but Colorado has got a lot of people coming,” Richards said. “Good roads are essential to the state’s growth.”
Dolores resident Susan Lisak said she plans to support Proposition 110. While she generally doesn’t like taxes, Lisak said the more extensive initiative would provide improvements throughout the state and not just to the Denver area.
Lisak commented on one slide that McVaugh presented, which compared the condition of Colorado’s roads with other states. According to the slide, Kansas ranks No. 1, Utah is 16th and Colorado ranks 33rd. Lisak said she’s from Michigan — a state that wasn’t even on the list because of poor road quality.
“I saw what it did in Michigan,” Lisak said. “The roads were terrible, terrible and I would not want to see our roads get to that level.”
