Support for ballot issue 1A

Editor:

One of the most familiar criticisms of elected officials is that they avoid difficult decisions when those decisions carry political costs. We call it "kicking the can down the road," leaving problems for someone else to solve, often at greater expense. As Gunnison County Commissioners, we believe our responsibility is to confront those problems even when the solutions are difficult. That is why we placed Ballot Issue 1A before voters this November. We recognize that asking residents to pay more in sales tax is no small matter. Gunnison County families already face extraordinary costs for housing, child care, health care and other necessities. But we also have a responsibility to explain why continuing with the status quo will ultimately cost our community more. For decades, Gunnison County’s Road and Bridge crews have stretched limited resources to keep our roads safe and passable. They have plowed snow, graded gravel, patched potholes, maintained drainage systems and addressed urgent repairs as they arise. But the funding available for this work has not kept pace with its cost. Colorado law restricts the revenues counties can use for road and bridge maintenance to sources like the gas tax (Highway User Tax Fund), federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), certain fees and unpredictable severance tax revenues. For most Gunnison County residents, only about 30% of property taxes go to the County, and we are expressly prohibited from using those revenues for road and bridge maintenance. Our existing 1% County sales tax is also restricted to capital improvements rather than ongoing maintenance and includes a 50% shareback to municipalities. Meanwhile, our primary road funding source, the state gas tax, has not increased since the early 1990s, but the costs of labor, equipment, materials and construction have dramatically increased. Year after year, our crews have done what they could with the resources available. Necessary maintenance that could not be funded was deferred, and those unmet needs accumulated. A comprehensive assessment of our 419-mile County road network finally allowed us to measure the full extent of the problem. Only 36% of County roads were rated in good condition, and the estimated cost of delayed maintenance exceeded $38 million. That $38 million represents something like a maxed-out credit card. We have been making payments every year, but they have not been enough to keep the balance from growing. Unlike a conventional credit card, however, the accumulating costs are driven by physical deterioration and inflation, not interest charges. A road that needs relatively inexpensive preventive maintenance today may require extensive rehabilitation tomorrow. Eventually, it may need complete reconstruction. In this analogy, delaying maintenance increases the credit card balance. Our engineering assessment estimated approximately $200,000 per mile for minor rehabilitation of paved roads in good condition, compared with $3 million per mile for complete reconstruction of severely deteriorated roads. The longer we defer maintenance, the more expensive the work becomes. Maintaining what we already own is one of the most fundamental principles of fiscal responsibility. Our roads and bridges represent generations of public investment. They connect people to work, schools, health care, emergency services, businesses and the public lands that are central to life in Gunnison County. Allowing these assets to deteriorate unnecessarily squanders investments taxpayers have already made. We have successfully pursued major projects with substantial outside funding, including paving Cottonwood Pass and the more than $15 million Safe Streets and Roads for All grant. But competitive grants frequently require significant local matching funds. Without a dependable local revenue source, our ability to leverage outside dollars for future improvements is increasingly limited. The state is not a reliable partner to help us solve this problem. Colorado faces enormous budget pressures of its own, and rural infrastructure needs have long competed for attention and limited resources. Waiting for a statewide solution is not a responsible financial plan. Ballot Issue 1A offers a practical local alternative: a dedicated half-cent sales tax to maintain and improve the roads and bridges our community depends upon. Visitors who travel our roads and contribute to their wear will also help pay for their upkeep. Unlike uncertain grants or fluctuating state allocations, dedicated local revenue provides a dependable foundation for preventive maintenance and long-term planning. What does that mean for household budgets? Consider a family that spends $15,000 annually on taxable purchases within Gunnison County, after paying for housing, health care, child care and other expenses not subject to this sales tax. The additional cost would be $75 per year, or $6.25 per month. By contrast, a flat tire can cost $200 to $300 to be replaced, or significantly more if the wear on a set requires more than one new tire. We recognize that $75 matters, particularly to households already struggling with rising expenses. But we ask residents to weigh that cost against the considerably greater expense of allowing our infrastructure to deteriorate further. We cannot promise that 1A will erase decades of deferred maintenance overnight, but it does provide a sustainable pathway to begin reducing that backlog, protect roads that remain in good condition and stop repeating the cycle that brought us here. The question before us is not whether we will eventually pay for deteriorating roads and bridges. We will. The question is how much we will pay, and how much of that burden we will leave to future generations. Voting no will not erase the $38 million obligation. It will not stop roads from deteriorating or construction costs from increasing. It will simply postpone the decision while the bill grows larger. As your County Commissioners, we believe responsible leadership requires confronting this reality now, even when the solution is politically difficult. We cannot keep “kicking the can down the road” and call that a sustainable financial strategy. We ask you to join us in protecting the investments our community has already made and choosing a fiscally responsible path forward. Please vote yes on 1A.