FORT COLLINS, Colo.—It looked like a sure bet.
But a 2008 ballot measure to change gaming rules to benefit community colleges has produced far less revenue than what was forecast four years ago.
The Coloradoan reported that the gaming changes allowed under Amendment 50 in 2008 have produced about $19.7 million in additional revenue for community colleges (). The forecast was for an additional $86 million by the current fiscal year.
“There’s no question, it hurts community colleges, and by extension, hurts community college students,” said Lt. Gov. Joe Garcia, who also wears the executive director’s hat for the Colorado Department of Higher Education.
He said students are paying more out of their own pockets than they would be if gaming revenue had lived up to expectations.
Amendment 50 asked voters to allow casinos in Colorado’s three legal gaming towns—Blackhawk, Central City and Cripple Creek—to raise the maximum bet from $5 to $100, add the games of craps and roulette and remain open 24 hours a day. A huge chunk of the revenue generated by these changes, 78 percent, would benefit community colleges.
Casino interests formed an issue committee, Coloradans for Community Colleges, and pumped about $7.6 million into promoting the amendment’s passage, according to campaign finance records from the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office. That’s more than Amendment 50 has provided colleges in any single year.
Coloradans for Community Colleges circulated mailers and ran a television advertisement featuring scenes from campuses that billed Amendment 50 as “a vote that helps us all,” because it stood to provide colleges “a dramatic funding increase.”
“We did not run the campaign,” said Nancy McCallin, president of the Colorado Community College System. “The gaming folks ran the campaign.”
But education leaders, including Garcia and McCallin, also wanted Amendment 50 to pass.
“As an educator at the time, I also supported it,” said Garcia, past president of Colorado State University-Pueblo and Pikes Peak Community College. “It was a clever way for the gaming industry to get what it wanted because it served another purpose.”
State economists with Colorado Legislative Council projected Amendment 50 would bring colleges $22 million in its first year (fiscal year 2010-11), $26 million last year, $38 million this year, $45 million next year and $57 million two years from now.
Actual revenue from Amendment 50 to community colleges has amounted to $6.1 million in its first year, $6.9 million this year and an anticipated $6.7 million during the fiscal year ending in 2013, according to Colorado Joint Budget Committee appropriation reports.
But Amendment 50 looked promising to voters with the weight of credible education leaders, the deep pockets of the casino lobby and the rosy revenue forecast of state economists behind it. It passed overwhelmingly—59 percent in favor, 41 percent against.
“The economy didn’t do what anybody expected it to do,” said Mike Mauer, director of Legislative Council. “Instead of growing a lot, we grew a little. I would maintain that the estimates were off—just like all estimates were off—because we didn’t expect the downturn in the economy.”
The dismal economy affected community colleges and their students beyond the scope of gaming revenue. Overall revenue in Colorado slumped below expectations, and the state’s support for community colleges declined from $143 million in fiscal 2008-09 to $116 million for the current fiscal year, according to Mark Superka, chief financial officer for the Colorado Community College System.
To offset what they are not getting from casinos and the state, community colleges have reached into students’ pockets by raising tuition. Colorado residents paid $81 per credit hour when Amendment 50 passed. Today, they pay $112.75 per credit hour, according to Superka.
Amendment 50 was never intended to solve the funding problem at community colleges, and it certainly hasn’t, Garcia said. Until the state identifies a steady, reliable funding source for community colleges or increases their direct support, Garcia frets that they’ll be mired in the same financial rut.
“I don’t want to call them gimmicks, but special revenue sources are not the answer,” he said.
