Lawmakers in Colorado have introduced legislation aimed at countering a ballot initiative supported by construction industry stakeholders that would direct hundreds of millions of dollars toward road infrastructure projects.
.jpg)
The proposal, known as Initiative 175, is currently in the signature-gathering phase and, if approved by voters, would require the state to allocate approximately $700 million in existing budget funds to road construction. Supporters argue the measure would strengthen transportation infrastructure without raising taxes.
However, Democratic legislators have moved to blunt its financial impact. State Reps. Andy Boesenecker of Fort Collins and Emily Sirota of Denver introduced a bill designed to take effect only if Initiative 175 qualifies for and passes on the November ballot.
The countermeasure would reduce several transportation-related fees and taxes, including vehicle registration fees, electric vehicle fees, late registration penalties and the state’s 6-cent gas fee. By lowering these revenue streams, the legislation would decrease the amount of funding collected, allowing the state to retain more general fund dollars that might otherwise be refunded under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).
"Initiative 175, as it's drafted today, would divert $700 million from our general fund to fund solely their new definition of what road construction should be in the state of Colorado," Boesenecker said.
Boesenecker emphasized concerns about how the initiative could affect other public services, arguing that voters may not fully understand the tradeoffs.
"I don't know a voter that wouldn't agree with that, right? That we want to be able to have a safe and reliable transit network," he said. "What they're not being asked is, do you know that that $700 million could otherwise go to your child's school? Do you know that it could mean the difference between having a hospital in your community or not?"
Sirota echoed those concerns, stating: "What is being presented to voters is, in my opinion, disingenuous. What is missing from that question to voters is what do you prefer to do without?”
Backers of Initiative 175, including local officials and construction advocates, maintain that the proposal simply redirects existing transportation-related revenues to prioritize road projects.
Cody Kennedy, mayor of Grand Junction, voiced support for the initiative, describing it as a straightforward funding solution.
"This is funding roads without a tax increase, using revenue that is already supposed to go to roads," he said.
Kennedy also criticized the legislative effort to counter the initiative.
"If you realize that legislators are trying to do this to you, oh my gosh, fire them. This is terrible," he said.
At the same time, Kennedy acknowledged the broader tension between voter mandates and budget flexibility.
.jpg)
"As a mayor, that does concern me greatly," Kennedy said. "But as a voter, that would also concern me because it's really the will of the voters that we should be paying attention to."
Currently, some vehicle- and fuel-related revenues in Colorado are allocated to a mix of transportation priorities, including transit systems, bike infrastructure and electric vehicle charging stations. Initiative 175 would shift those funds exclusively toward road construction.
Boesenecker indicated that the proposed legislation could be withdrawn if backers of the ballot measure agree to negotiate.
"The second we have an indication from this group that they're willing to pull down Initiative 175, I think conversations can open up about more productive ways to fund transportation in our state," he said.
Originally reported by Marshall Zelinger in 9 News.
.png)
.png)
