How can the Colorado General Assembly change what voters approved in November 2008? That’s the question being asked as legislators plot how to deal with the bonanza from increased casino gambling.
Limited gaming in the historic mining towns of Central City, Cripple Creek and Black Hawk was initially approved in 1990, with restricted hours and $5 individual bet limits. The 2008 vote allowed for longer hours and individual bets up to $100, and everyone expects net proceeds to soar. That’s where a battle brews.
The 1990 constitutional amendment passed with strong historic preservation support because it included monies for a new State Historic Fund, administered by the Colorado Historical Society, to aid preservation of public and non-profit properties. Since 1993, $211.1 million has been given in 3,327 grants in all 65 counties. Grants of $13 million annually revitalize old buildings, bringing jobs and life back to dying rural towns.
Proponents of the November vote promised the historic fund would continue to get its share of “old” limited gaming proceeds, and a small portion of “new” expanded proceeds. Prime beneficiary of the increased revenues (at 78 percent) was the community college system.
When it came time to decide the formula for allocating the expected new revenues, two state agencies — the historic society and community college leaders — met with a gubernatorial representative and carved up the pie. No citizen historic preservationists were included.
Results of that meeting, discussed at a hearing for House Bill 1272 last week, were frustrating, indicating that it wasn’t possible to determine old and new proceeds, therefore the state historic fund couldn’t count on the promised proceeds.
SHF’s share, it was decided, would be based on 2008-09 gambling revenues — expected to be one of the lowest in years, and any increase would be capped at 3 percent, no matter how high gambling revenues went. Over the last 10 years, gaming revenues have risen almost 6 percent each year. Instead of more money, current recipients will get less — perhaps a lot less.
Preservationists came from all over to last week’s hearing to describe why it was essential to keep allotments as the ballot promised; only five were given time, while nine college proponents, all from Denver, spoke.
Dave Wooten, a rancher from south of La Junta, described a unique cultural landscape inventory underway on more than 1 million acres in Las Animos, Huerfano and Otero counties, in partnership with Colorado Preservation Inc., the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Department of Local Affairs.
“We have prehistoric rock art, Native American sites, Hispanic haciendas, early 1900 homesteads, some extraordinary sites because they’re on private lands and have been protected,” Wooten said. “If the historic fund is cut, we’ll lose funding for this inventory.”
There is hope. Over the weekend, preservationists heard that Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, was going to ask that the base year be 2007-08 — when revenues were higher — or an average of several years, and others were discussing the increases be 6 percent, not 3 percent.
Higher funding for the historical fund, “held harmless for existing recipients,” was what the voters approved and is what legislators should enforce. What they’re offering now is a shell game.
