Letter to the Editor on Proposition 109

Dear Editor,

Two ballot proposals this year address funding for transportation. Proposition 109 requires bonding for transportation without a tax increase, and 110 requires bonding paid for with a tax increase. Before you vote for 109, thinking there is enough money in the budget to fund transportation without a new revenue source, I would suggest you read an analysis of the consequences by Henry Sobanet. Henry was the chief legislative economist for over 10 years, and the Director of the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting for nearly 8 years. Henry knows the budget. In a recent Facebook post Henry explained the negative consequences of 109, even to highway maintenance and water projects.

One of the primary consequences would be a reduction in general fund for higher education, which will include Lamar Community College. State funding is particularly important in the community college system, more so than the universities and 4-year colleges. Higher education has always been the first department to be cut when revenues are short, because it is discretionary. I believe that MOST of the money to pay for transportation bonds under 109 will come from higher ed. That means greater increases in tuition, but it also means significantly less funds available to support the community college system.

Community colleges, especially LCC, are important assets to rural Colorado. I am a NO vote on proposition 109.

Sincerely,
Brad Young
Lake Road
Lamar, CO 81052