Transportation Funding Adjustments
HB1430, titled the Colorado Budget Protection Act, is a transportation-funding measure designed to adjust how Colorado raises and allocates money for roads and related transportation needs. The bill is structured around a possible 2026 ballot initiative that would increase the amount of state revenue dedicated to transportation; if that initiative is approved, HB1430 lowers the gasoline excise tax, special fuel excise tax, and road usage fee so that transportation funding increases do not come at the expense of general-fund-supported state services. The bill also creates a new Support Road Transportation Fund and a Road Enterprise, and it revises a number of existing transportation-related fees, transfers, and accounting rules.
The bill would amend multiple sections of Colorado law governing tax rates, vehicle registration fees, road usage fees, transportation transfers, and enterprise accounting. It changes the gasoline and special fuel excise taxes for a limited period beginning in 2027, adjusts electric vehicle registration and road usage equalization fees, modifies road safety surcharges, and redirects certain permit-fee revenues for oversize, overweight, and longer vehicle combinations into a new Road Enterprise Cash Fund. It also creates a Transportation Funding Working Group, changes how certain transportation-related revenues are counted for constitutional and budget purposes, and establishes a Support Road Transportation Fund that distributes revenue to the state highway fund, counties, and municipalities.
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support, with several committee and floor votes passing by moderate margins and some divided votes in the Senate. The bill’s framing emphasizes protecting core state services such as K-12 education, health care, and higher education while still supporting transportation investment, which indicates support from members prioritizing budget stability and infrastructure funding. At the same time, the presence of multiple close votes and some failed amendments suggests the proposal was politically sensitive and not broadly consensus-driven.
The main points of contention appear to be how to balance transportation funding against the general fund, whether to reduce fuel taxes and vehicle-related fees, and whether the new revenue structure should rely on an enterprise model that avoids counting certain receipts against state fiscal limits. Supporters appear focused on preventing cuts to education, health care, and other core services while still funding roads; opponents likely objected to the complexity of the revenue shifts, the temporary tax and fee reductions, and the creation of new entities and accounting mechanisms tied to a possible ballot measure. The bill also appears to have been intertwined with other legislation and contingent on voter approval of a separate constitutional initiative, adding another layer of uncertainty and disagreement.