A broad transportation bill introduced Wednesday has miles to go before winning bipartisan consensus as Democratic and Republican lawmakers and Gov. Bill Ritter hammer out details on fee hikes and funding sources.
Democrats want to boost transportation funding by hiking registration fees by $41 on the average driver. Republicans want to use existing state funds to pay for at least part of $500 million in transportation projects discussed in the bill.
Sometime soon those two perpetually divergent roads will merge, bill sponsor Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, said with confidence.
He noted that for the first time since a blue-ribbon panel said Colorado must dedicate between $500 million and $1.5 billion annually to its roads and bridges, most lawmakers back a transportation fix and are talking policy rather than politics.
“I see all of this as an evolution in the conversation,” Rice said. “We just need a marker to start from. We’re going to get it done. We have a responsibility.”
The revenue from the fee hikes in the bill would pay the debt on $500 million in certificates of participation, which are like bonds. That money would be used to repair 125 of Colorado’s 126 critically deficient bridges and help pay for road maintenance.
As written, the proposal brings in more transportation money than a ballot initiative voters rejected this summer, and it would cost motorists less than a bill that foundered last legislative session.
Rice and co-sponsor Sen. Dan Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, fully expect their plan to change, but they think it stands a better shot than those previous transportation fixes.
Registration cost increases — based on weight rather than vehicle value — would rise less than the $100 that Ritter, a Democrat, and lawmakers proposed in failed 2008 legislation.
Of course, the amount of money coming into state coffers also would shrink, from $500 million under the 2008 plan to $250 million under the current plan.
Even so, that $250 million a year is more than quadruple the amount a Republican-backed ballot initiative would have taken from the Department of Natural Resources and given to roads. Amendment 52 failed at the ballot box in November.
This year’s model also is much more sweeping, creating new commissions and even a pilot plan where drivers pay a taxed based on the number of miles they travel. It’s a strategy Portland, Ore., has experimented with as a replacement for gasoline taxes. In Colorado, that 22-cents-per-gallon tax is the main source of roads funding.
The bill, which could be introduced as early as Friday, also would begin the process of tolling roads and forming public-private partnerships to build new transportation projects.
Both parties are talking concessions, but there’s by no means consensus, even among Democrats.
Joint Budget Committee member Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, is tired of what he sees as stopgap budget measures.
First, there was Referendum C, the temporary suspension of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights revenue caps. Then came Ritter’s mill-levy freeze, which kept the state from having to spend on schools. Now this.
He thinks the the blowback in public perception will stand in the way of needed budget reform in the future, and it’s not worth it.
“And next year we’re going to ask voters to fix the budget?” Pommer said. “This raises revenue, but it doesn’t solve other problems. I just foresee trouble.”
Republicans took issue with the two new commissions the bill outlines, decrying them as more bureaucracy. And several rural and suburban Republicans said they would oppose charging drivers for miles traveled.
But the financing mechanism is the bigger sticking point.
Democrats want to borrow $500 million against the income generated by the new fees. Republicans want to put up state buildings as collateral.
The end result could be a lowering in the amount of fees the state would have to charge to borrow $500 million, said Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch.
“The fees that have been outlined are far too high for members of our caucus to sign off on,” McNulty said. “And we’re looking for the commitment of existing resources. Once we’re comfortable they’re committed to doing more with what they have, then sure, we can talk about a new revenue stream.”
Jessica Fender: 303-954-1244 or jfender@denverpost.com
