Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Colorado Proposition 109, "Fix Our Damn Roads" Transportation Bond Initiative (2018)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Colorado Proposition 109
Flag of Colorado.png
Election date
November 6, 2018
Topic
Bond issues
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
State statute		Origin
Citizens

Colorado Proposition 109, the "Fix Our Damn Roads" Transportation Bond Initiative, was on the ballot in Colorado as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.

A yes vote supported the initiative to authorize $3.5 billion in bonds to fund statewide transportation projects including bridge expansion, construction, maintenance, and repairs, and require that the state repay the debt from the general fund without raising taxes.
A no vote opposed the initiative to authorize $3.5 billion in bonds to fund statewide transportation projects and require that the state repay the debt from the general fund without raising taxes.

Election results

Colorado Proposition 109

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 952,814 39.28%

Defeated No

1,472,933 60.72%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Overview

Measure design

Proposition 109 was designed to authorize $3.5 billion in bonds with proceeds to be used exclusively for road and bridge expansion, construction, maintenance, and repair of specific statewide projects, and not to be used for transit, administration, or indirect costs and expenses. Under the initiative, the principal and interest on the borrowed money would have been paid out of the state budget, and the borrowed money and interest would have been excluded from the state's spending limit. The state's executive branch agencies would have been prohibited from transferring proceeds from the bonds to any other program or purpose.[3][4]

To see a full list of specific projects the funds would go toward, click here.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 109?

Two committees were registered to support Proposition 109:

  • Fix Our Damn Roads
  • No on 110, Yes on 109

Together, the committees had raised $778,595 and had spent $730,243.[5]

Four committees were registered to oppose Proposition 109:

  • Coloradans For Coloradans
  • Coloradans for a Responsible Future
  • Win the Fourth Colorado Issue Committee
  • State Ballot Issue Committee

Together, they had raised $7.41 million and had spent $7.37 million.

What was going on with Senate Bill 1 and the other bond measure?

In May 2018, the Colorado State Legislature passed Senate Bill 1, which dictated that, since a citizen initiative to approve a bond issue for transportation was not passed in November 2018, a bond issue was referred to the November 2019 ballot. Two different initiatives qualified for the November 2018 ballot: Proposition 109, known as the Fix Our Damn Roads Initiative, would have authorized bonds to fund transportation projects with repayment to come from the state's general fund. Proposition 110, the "Let's Go Colorado" measure, would have authorized bonds for transportation projects and a tax increase to repay the debt. SB 1 also dictated different funding allocation provisions depending on whether or not a citizen initiative bond issue was passed in 2018 and whether or not the initiative included a tax increase.[6]

Colorado law provides that in the event that two conflicting measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other on any points of conflict. However, the other measure is not wholly superseded. Provisions in the measure that receives fewer votes that don't directly conflict with the measure that got more votes still take effect. According to the legislative council, the main provisions of both Proposition 109 and Proposition 110 could have both been enacted.[6]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for the initiative is below:[4]

“

Shall state debt be increased $3,500,000,000, with a maximum repayment cost of $5,200,000,000, without raising taxes or fees, by a change to the Colorado revised statutes requiring the issuance of transportation revenue anticipation notes, and, in connection therewith, note proceeds shall be retained as a voter-approved revenue change and used exclusively to fund specified road and bridge expansion, construction, maintenance, and repair projects throughout the state?[7]

”

Summary and analysis

The summary and analysis provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 State Ballot Information Booklet (also known as the Blue Book) was as follows:[8]

Proposition 109 proposes amending the Colorado statutes to:

  • require the state to borrow up to $3.5 billion in 2019 to fund up to 66 specific highway projects;
  • direct the state to identify a source of funds to repay the borrowed amount without raising taxes or fees; and
  • limit the total repayment amount, including principal and interest, to $5.2 billion over 20 years.

Current state highway funding. Maintenance and construction of state highways are funded through the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). CDOT receives most of its revenue from federal and state gasoline and diesel fuel taxes and from state vehicle registration fees, as shown in Figure 1. For state budget year 2017-18, CDOT spent approximately $1.2 billion, or roughly 85 percent of its revenue, on state highway maintenance and operations and $220.5 million, or 15 percent, on construction.

Bond sale and repayment. Proposition 109 directs CDOT to borrow up to $3.5 billion by selling transportation revenue bonds. The total repayment amount, including principal and interest, is limited to $5.2 billion. The bonds must be repaid in 20 years, and the state must reserve the right to repay the bonds ahead of schedule without penalty. Assuming the repayment schedule is for the full $5.2 billion over 20 years, the average annual repayment cost will be $260 million. Actual repayment amounts will vary depending on the terms of the revenue bonds.

Past bond sale and repayment for transportation projects. In 1999, voters approved the sale of $1.5 billion worth of bonds for transportation projects. The state was required to use the borrowed money to pay for up to 24 transportation projects across the state. Repayment costs for the 1999 bonds totaled $2.3 billion. The debt was fully repaid through various state and federal sources in December 2016.

Transportation funding commitments conditional on the outcome of Proposition 109. In the last two years, the state legislature passed two laws to increase funding for future transportation projects. In 2017, the state committed $1.5 billion for transportation projects through the sale and lease-back of state buildings. In 2018, the state devoted another $1.0 billion over a 20-year period for transportation projects from existing state revenues. Under current law, the $3.5 billion in proposed borrowing will replace these commitments, resulting in a net increase of $1.0 billion for transportation.

Road and bridge projects. Borrowed money under Proposition 109 may only be used for road and bridge expansion, construction, maintenance, and repair on the 66 transportation projects located throughout the state identified in the measure on pages 59 through 63. The funding provided through the measure is not enough to pay for all the projects identified in the measure; the estimated cost of the projects is $5.6 billion. The final selection and order of construction will be determined by CDOT and the Transportation Commission.

Full text

The full text is as follows:

Section 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add part 11 to Article 4 of Title 43 as follows:

Part 11
FIX OUR DAMN ROADS

43-4-1101. Short title. The short title of this act is “Fix Our Damn Roads.”

43-4-1102. Legislative declaration. (1) the people of the state of Colorado find And declare that:

(a) Colorado’s elected officials have decreased funding for the core Governmental function of road and bridge construction, maintenance and repair over The last decade; and

(b) without raising taxes or fees, the sale of additional revenue anticipation Notes should be authorized n the amount of three billion five hundred million dollars With the proceeds to be spent solely on road and bridge expansion, construction, Maintenance and repair on the statewide projects listed n this part 11 to accelerate Completion of those projects, that the principal and interest on the borrowed money Should be paid out of the state budget as provided in this part 11, that the borrowed Money and the interest be excluded from the state’s spending limit, and finally that The executive branch agencies be prohibited from transferring these proceeds to any Other programs or purposes.

43-4-1103. Revenue anticipation notes.

As soon as possible after the effective date of this part 11, but no later Than July 1, 2019, the executive director of the department of transportation shall Issue revenue anticipation notes in a maximum amount of three billion five hundred Million dollars with a maximum repayment cost of five billion two hundred million Dollars. The maximum repayment term for any notes shall be twenty years, and the Certificate, trust indenture or other instrument authorizing their issuance shall Provide that the state may pay the notes in full before the end of the specified payment Term without penalty. These purposes can be achieved without raising taxes.

43-4-1104. Required action by the general assembly.

Without raising taxes or fees, commencing as soon as possible after the effective date of this part 11, on or before July 1, 2019, and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter until the notes are paid in full, the general assembly shall identify And appropriate in each fiscal year sufficient funds for the repayment cost of the notes Until the notes are paid in full. Any annual appropriations made by the general Assembly shall be made in accordance with law and rulings issued by the Colorado Supreme court.

43-4-1105. Restricted use of proceeds.

The proceeds of such additional transportation revenue anticipation notes Shall be excluded from state fiscal year spending limits and shall be used exclusively For road and bridge expansion, construction, maintenance and repair and shall not be Used for transit, administration or indirect costs and expenses. The proceeds Distributed hereunder shall be in addition to any revenue appropriated or dedicated For road and bridge expansion, construction, maintenance and repair. The proceeds Shall be used only for the projects identified in this part 11 and for costs directly Related to such projects including planning, engineering, environmental assessments, As well as procurement and administrative costs. The executive branch shall not Transfer the proceeds to any other programs or for other purposes.

43-4-1106. Projects.

(1) The Colorado department of transportation and the transportation Commission shall use the proceeds described in section 43-4-1105 exclusively for the Federal aid transportation projects listed in this section:

(a) in the North Front Range transportation planning region:

(I) US 34 / US 85 interchange reconfiguration, improvements to the Safety and capacity of the interchange and corridor improvements based off highway 85 planning and environmental linkages; and

(ii) 1-25 North, State Highway 7 to state highway 14, add a lane in each Direction, interchange reconstruction, mainline reconstruction, safety and Intelligent transportation safety improvements.

(b) in the Pis Peak transportation planning region:

(I) state highway 21, constitution to north carefree, construction of Interim continuous flow intersection;

(ii) us 24 West, 1-25 to woodland park, drainage and intersection Improvements on us 24 from 1-25 to woodland park;

(iii) 1-25 South, widening s. Academy to circle/lake, widening of Roadway to six lanes; and

(iv) state highway 21, research parkway interchange, construction Of new grade-separated interchange at state highway 21 and research parkway.

(c) in the Pueblo area transportation planning region:

(I) us 50b, widen to four lanes, shoulders, passing lanes and other Safety improvements to the Kansas border; and

(ii) us 50, West of Pueblo, widen the divided highway from two lanes to Three lanes.

(u) in the Southeast transportation planning region: us 287 lamar reliever Route, construction of reliever route, realignment of us 50 to future us5o/us 287 Interchange.

(e) in the upper front range transportation planning region:

(I) 1-76, Fort Morgan to brush, phase 4 reconstruction of roadway and Interchanges between ft. Morgan and brush;

(ii) 1-76, Fort Morgan to brush, phases reconstruction of roadway and Interchanges between ft. Morgan and brush; and

(iii) state highway 52 interchange in Hudson, reconstruction of Interchange.

(f) in the greater Denver area transportation planning region:

(I) 1-25 south, monument to castle rock, expand capacity monument to Castle rock as outlined in planning and environmental linkages study;

(ii) 1-25 central, santa fe to alameda, valley highway phase 2.0 Improvements, complete alameda interchange including reconstruction of lipan, Reconstruction of alameda bridge over the south platte and finalize ramp Configuration;

(iii) 1-25, valley highway phase 3.0, Santa Fe to bronco arch, Replacement of bridges and interchanges and roadway widening, congestion relief, Safety, and mobility improvements;

(iv) us 85, widening from c-470 io 1-25 fl’j castle rock (Louviers to Meadows), reconstruction of two lane roadway to four lanes with a divided median And acceleration/deceleration lanes and foot trail;

(v) state highway 66 corridor improvements west, widening, safety, and Intersection improvements;

(vi) state highway 119, expand capacity;

(vii) 1-25 north, us 36 to 120th, improvements on 1-25 between us 36 and 120th. Potential improvements include auxiliary lanes, additional lane between 84th Ave. And Thornton parkway and reconstruction of 88th ave. Bridge;

(viii) 1-25 north, us 36 to state highway 7, tolled express lane Improvements, expand tolled express lanes from current planned end at e-470 io State highway 7;

(ix) 1-70 west, westbound peak period shoulder lane, mirror eastbound Peak period shoulder lane from twin tunnels (exit 241) to empire junction;

(x) 1-70 west, Floyd hill, reconstruct westbound bridge at Kermit's And construct third lane down Floyd hill to bridge. Construction of third lane to Twin tunnels, either peak period shoulder lanes or permanent;

(xi) 1-225, 1-25 to Yosemite, complete national environmental policy Act design, removing bottleneck at Yosemite, ramps, lanes, interchanges and bridge Replacement at ulster;

(xii) 1-270, widening from 1-76 to I- 70, reconstruction to improve Capacity, safety, and economic competitiveness. Capacity improvements, replacement Of bridges, and reconstruct concrete pavement;

(xiii) us 6, Wadsworth interchange, reconstruct interchange to Improve safety and relieve congestion;

(xiv) 1-270/us 85, 1-270 to 62nd ave. Interchange, reconstruct Interchange at 1-270 intersection at 60th ave. To improve safety and capacity;

(xv) 104th grade separation, construction of grade separated Interchange at loand 104th/us 85 and railroad crossing grade separation; (xvi) 120th grade separation, construction of a grade separated Interchange at l2o and us 85/railroad crossing grade separation 120th; and

(xvii) us 285, Richmond hill to Shaffer's crossing, widen roadway to Four lanes with median and construction of grade separated interchange at king’s Valley.

(g) in the central front range transportation planning region:

(I) state highway 67, divide to victor, shoulder widening and Safety improvements;

(ii) state highway 115, replace and widen rock creek bridge; and

(iii) us 285, fairplay to Richmond hill, addition of passing lanes and Shoulder improvements.

(h) in the intermountain transportation planning region:

(I) 1-70, Garfield county/New Castle interchange upgrade;

(ii) 1-70 West, G Spur road (Edwards interchange), phase 2 of Edwards Interchange; interchange and intersection improvements;

(iii) state highway 9, Frisco North, completion of corridor including Minimal widening, water quality and drainage improvements, and two interchange Improvements;

(iv) state highway 13, rifle north, construction upgrades;

(v) 1-70 West, vail pass auxiliary lanes and wildlife overpass,

Complete national environmental policy act design and preliminary engineering for Recommended third lane (both directions) to increase safety and mobility. Install Permanent water quality features, and widen roadway;

(vi) 1-70 West, exit 203 interchange improvements,

(vii) 1-70 West, Frisco to Silverthorne auxiliary lane, improvements And upgrades; and

(viii) 1-70 West, Silverthorne interchange, reconstruction of exit 205 Interchange and related improvements for four ramps.

(I) in the Northwest transportation planning region:

(I) us 40, Kremmling east and west, phased addition of shoulders and Passing lanes on 14 miles;

(ii) state highway 13, Rio Blanco south to county line, phased Addition of shoulders and passing lanes;

(iii) state highway 13, Wyoming south, reconstruction of truck route And related improvements;

(iv) state highway 139, little horse south, safety improvements Including reconstruction of the surface and addition of 4-8’ paved shoulders; and

(v) US 40, Fraser to winter park, capacity improvements (four lane Facility).

(I) in the grand valley transportation planning region:

(I) 1-70, business loop, 1-70 b widening; complete reconstruction and Widening to meet current geometric design standards and improve safety, drainage And accesses along the corridor; add lanes in each direction to make a three-lane Roadway section and reconstruct frontage roads s street to exit 26 corridor, new Capacity;

(ii) 1-70, Palisade to Debeque, reconstruction with realignment of Curves and other safety improvements;

(iii) US 6 improvements mesa county, completion of intersection studies And preliminary engineering for safety and mobility throughout the corridor; Intersection, shoulders, and other safety and mobility improvements at specified Locations throughout the corridor; and

(iv) state highway 340, safety and capacity improvements including Intersection improvements.

(k) in the eastern transportation planning region:

(I) 1-70 east, replacement of Alkali-Silica reactivity pavement and Associated safety improvements; and

(ii) US 385 safety improvements, intersection, shoulders, and other Safety improvements at specified locations.

(I) in the southwest transportation planning region:

(I) US 160 mobility improvements, corridor improvements, passing lanes, And shoulder widening at select locations;

(ii) US 160 Towaoc, addition of passing lanes and vehicle turnouts;

(iii) US 160 Elmore’s east, completion of specified improvements;

(iv) US 160 Pagosa, reconstruction to correct wheel rutting and Addition of pedestrian facclities for safety;

(v) US 550 south, Sunnyside, major reconstruction requiring widening to A four- lane roadway, including earthwork, drainage, irrigation, utilities, paving, pedestrian bridge, sound wall, animal crossings;

(vi) US 550 corridor south, gap reconstruction to four lanes, including Dratnage, utilities, animal crossings, and intersection improvements; (vii) US 550/US 160 connection, complete the connection of us 550 to us 160 at the Grandview interchange; and

(viii) US 550/US 160 connection, finalize pre-construction, purchase Required right-of-way, complete final design and prepare advertisement.

(m) in the San Luis Valley transportation planning region, US 50 safety and Mobility improvements between Salida and Coaldale, addition of passing lanes and Vehicle turnouts.

(n) in the Gunnison valley transportation planning region:

(I) US 50 Little Blue Canyon, reconstruction and widening of existing Roadway template to meet current geometric design standards and improve roadside Safety, drainage and access along the corridor; addition of passing lanes and Mitigation of geohazard landslide within the project limits; phased implementation

(ii) US 550 safety improvements, specified study to review intersection Improvements. Us 550 region 3 only;

(iii) US 550 Uncompahgre river and Colona, addition of shoulders Between Uncompahgre river and Colona (billy creek); construction of deer fencing And animal underpasses; and

(iv) State Highway 92, safety improvements including reconstruction of The surface, addition of 4-8’ paved shoulders across rogers mesa, and other safety Improvements including access and intersection improvements.

(o) in the South Central transportation planning region, 1-25, State Highway 10/State Highway 160, interchange reconstruction at Walsenburg.

(p) US 5 corridor improvements, safety, intersection and interchange Improvements.

43-4-1107. Effective date This part 11 shall become effective upon proclamation by the governor and Shall be self-executing.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Colorado Title Board wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 31, and the FRE is -13. The word count for the ballot title is 65, and the estimated reading time is 17 seconds.

In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

FixOurDamnRoadsLogo.jpg

Fix Our Damn Roads led the campaign in support of the measure.

Sponsors

Jon Caldara and Mike Krause of the Independence Institute filed the initiative.[4]

Supporters

Arguments

  • Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute and proponent of the initiative, wrote “We’re told the only way to Fix Our Damn Roads is to raise taxes and raise fees. We’re told the only way to Fix Our Damn Roads is to pay ransom to ineffective transit schemes and pay off cities with slush funds. I’m here to say HELL NO! We’re not going to be played again!”[10]
  • Joshua Sharf, fiscal policy analyst for the Independence Institute, said, "Our roads never get fixed because transportation comes last in the state’s budgeting priorities. Think of the budget as a series of cascading buckets. When one is filled, it overflows into the next one. By statute, the bucket labeled “Transportation” is at the bottom, and the big bucket labeled “General Fund” is in the middle. It’s almost impossible to fill the General Fund bucket, and little if any water ever makes it down to the Transportation bucket. Proposition 109 forces road projects to the front of the line by issuing revenue anticipation notes (bonds) to fund that work. Since the very first bucket is always the one labeled “Debt Service,” the state legislature has to pay those bonds off first. Just like that, transportation moves from being the red-headed stepchild to being the favorite son. Prop 109 does the work that politicians won’t do. It sets priorities for our budget, does it without increasing taxes, and forces legislators to make the choices they should have been making all along."[11]
  • Former Sen. Mike Kopp (R), president of Colorado Concern, an organization of over 120 CEOs which describes its mission as to "enhance and protect Colorado's business climate," wrote the following:[9]
“ We believe [Senate Bill 1] and this approach also aligns with the priorities and sentiment of the public. Making use of existing state revenues is both economically feasible and we think it has strong political viability. The use of existing revenues makes it similar to an approach voters approved once before to improve roads. When voters fill out their ballots this fall, we hope they will join us in putting their state tax dollars to work on the policy area that matters so much to their daily lives.[7] ”
  • Colorado Springs Mayor, John Suthers, said, "Fix Our Damn Roads spends $35 million a year (over 20 years) to bond $3.5 billion. Why would Colorado Springs vote for the state tax increase? They could get more money out of a local tax and by voting for Fix Our Damn Roads."[12]

Official arguments

The supporting arguments provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 Blue Book were as follows:[8]

1) Proposition 109 accelerates the construction of essential highway projects without raising taxes or fees. Building and maintaining a highway system are core functions of government. The state has failed to invest sufficient funds to maintain and expand the highway system. The measure corrects this by directing the state to prioritize highway projects ahead of other programs.

2) The lack of highway capacity is the most significant contributor to traffic congestion in the state and causes delays, increases business costs, and reduces driver and passenger safety. The measure requires the state to invest more money in transportation, improving the state's economy and quality of life.

Opposition

Opponents

  • Lone Tree Mayor Jackie Millet[13]
  • Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce[13]
  • Pro 15[14]

Arguments

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce featured the following argument on its website:[15]

“ Proposition 109 allows the state to take out $3.5 billion in bonds to address state transportation projects. While we strongly support increased funding for our transportation system, Proposition 109 is not the answer. It has the state issuing debt with no dedicated source of revenue to pay that debt, and the debt accrued only triggers $2.2 million bonding capacity, which doesn’t begin to meaningfully fund CDOT’s $9 billion project list. Because there is no new revenue source, state resources currently allocated to critical needs like health care and schools would have to be reallocated to transportation. The initiative also only addresses projects on state roads (those managed by CDOT), meaning 88 percent of roads (which are managed by local governments) in Colorado are left with no funding at all.[7] ”

Official arguments

The opposing arguments provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 Blue Book were as follows:[8]

1) Proposition 109 commits up to $5.2 billion to repay borrowing without creating a new source of revenue. This commitment diverts money from other programs, which may include education, health care, and routine transportation maintenance. Furthermore, the measure would pay for only a portion of the projects and fails to address the cost of ongoing maintenance of these projects.

2) In 2018, the state demonstrated its commitment to transportation funding by pledging $1.0 billion from existing revenue sources. If Proposition 109 passes, it replaces this commitment with borrowed money. Borrowing is expensive. Under this measure, approximately $1.7 billion in taxpayer money will be spent on interest payments.


Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

  • The Gazette wrote: "Hear this loud and clear. Passage of the secret society’s Prop 110 means high taxes and fewer road improvements in southern Colorado. [Proposition 109] issues bonds immediately, pays for them with existing revenues, and generates more transportation money without raising taxes. Supporters pitch [Proposition 110] as a resolution to our crisis of dangerously bad highway infrastructure. Yet less than half the money would go to fix highways. No wonder they met in secret. Don’t be fooled by a tax increase so bad a cabal of special interests concocted it behind closed doors. Vote against a secret scheme to benefit a few and for a measure created in public to benefit all with better roads. Vote 'no' on 110 and 'yes' on 109."[16]
  • The Greeley Tribune wrote: "We’re throwing our support behind Proposition 109. We believe the state should invest in roads as a core function of government. And we think now is the time to act. While voters could chose to support both 109 and 110, we think Proposition 109 is better for Greeley, Evans, Windsor and northern Colorado. One big reason is the list of projects that would get funded. Perhaps most importantly, though, we like that Proposition 109 doesn’t include a sales tax hike. That’s important for communities like Greeley, which recently passed its own sales tax bump to support investment in local transportation projects. To be sure, Proposition 109 isn’t perfect. For example, it offers no long-term solution to the state’s overall budget challenges that have helped create our current transportation crisis. Proposition 109 offers voters the best chance to immediately improve our roads and bridges across the state."[17]

Opposition

  • The Aurora Sentinel wrote: "Prop 109, Fix Our Damn Roads, takes $3.5 billion away from schools, colleges, public safety or other services and forces the state to build a proscribed list of projects that may not even make sense by the time Colorado gets the roads cash. [...] And Fix Our Damn Roads comes with a written-in-legal-stone list of projects it must fund. It’s billions of dollars of projects that would be hard or impossible to change if state transportation experts and engineers found new ways to save money or improve the system. Fix Our Damn Roads is the equivalent of letting your kids handle the family finances. It’s bad for the kids and bad for everyone. Vote no."[18]
  • The Craig Daily Press wrote: "The way we see it, Proposition 110 is the clear winner. Proposition 109 asks us to commit ourselves to $5.2 billion in bonded indebtedness with no specific revenue stream to service that debt. And, while the notion of repairing the state's crumbling highways without increasing taxes or fees might, at a glance, seem appealing, the fact remains: If you take a loan, you have to pay it back. This leaves us with Proposition 110. It, too, creates new debt, but it also creates new revenue dedicated to paying that debt, and while we are hesitant to advocate another new tax, the modest increase proposed by 110 is, in our opinion, the most sensible path."[19]
  • The Aspen Times wrote: "These are two transportation funding questions getting lumped together. Prop 109 is the wrong way to address the funding for transportation improvements. Called "Fix Our Damn Roads," adding $3.5 billion in bonds and contributing to the state's debt is not the right road. We are for Proposition 110, which would add a 0.62 percent sales tax for 20 years and is earmarked for transportation fixes. We'll all share in the burden without messing with the state debt. In 20 years, it would raise about $21.7 billion and essentially pay as we go."[20]

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures
Total campaign contributions:
Support: $778,595.30
Opposition: $7,407,939.11

Two committees registered to support Proposition 109:

  • Fix Our Damn Roads
  • No on 110, Yes on 109

Together, the committees had raised $778,595 and had spent $730,243.[5]

Four committees registered to oppose Proposition 109:

  • Coloradans For Coloradans
  • Coloradans for a Responsible Future
  • Win the Fourth Colorado Issue Committee
  • State Ballot Issue Committee

Together, they had raised $7.41 million and had spent $7.37 million.

Many committees were simultaneously registered to support and oppose multiple measures, therefore it is impossible to distinguish between funds spent on a particular measure. A full list of the committees and their various positions on the 13 statewide measures in Colorado can be found here.


Support

Committees in support of Proposition 109
Supporting committeesCash contributionsIn-kind servicesCash expenditures
Fix Our Damn Roads$499,876.60$248,718.70$451,699.69
No on 110, Yes on 109$30,000.00$248,718.70$29,825.00
Total$529,876.60$237,518.70$481,524.69
Totals in support
Total raised:$778,595.30
Total spent:$730,243.39

Donors

According to the most current reports available, the top donors in support of this measure were as follows:[21]

Donor Amount
Independence Institute $459,118.70
Colorado Economic Leadership Fund $150,000.00
Colorado Concern $50,000.00
The Anschutz Corporation $15,000.00
Pikes Peak Association of Realtors $10,000.00
Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce and EDC $10,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Proposition 109
Opposing committeesCash contributionsIn-kind servicesCash expenditures
Coloradans for Coloradans$7,057,701.00$221,256.36$7,054,108.72
Coloradans for a Responsible Future$123,500.00$2,849.75$86,353.56
State Ballot Issue Committee$0.00$0.00$0.00
Total$7,183,833.00$224,106.11$7,143,001.10
Totals in opposition
Total raised:$7,407,939.11
Total spent:$7,367,107.21

Top donors

Donor Amount
Colorado Construction Industry $2,021,500.00
National Association of Realtors $354,000.00
Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce $250,000.00
Protect Colorado, Inc. $187,500.00
4DEGREES $106,214.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Reports and analyses

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here.

Research findings from TRIP

On June 28, 2018, TRIP released a series of reports about transportation in Colorado, including one report titled "Colorado Transportation by the Numbers: Meeting the state's need for safe, smooth, and efficient mobility."

TRIP is a private, nonprofit national transportation research group sponsored by insurance companies, equipment manufacturers, businesses involved in highway and transit engineering and construction, labor unions, and more, that researches "transportation policies that help relieve traffic congestion and its impact on air quality, improve road and bridge conditions, make surface travel safer, and enhance economic productivity."[22]

Following are some findings included in the report:[23][24]

“

Driving on Colorado roads that are deteriorated, congested and that lack some desirable safety features costs Colorado drivers a total of $7.1 billion each year.

Due to inadequate state and local funding, 40 percent of major urban roads and highways in Colorado are in poor or mediocre condition. Driving on rough roads costs the annual Colorado driver $468 annually in additional vehicle operating costs.

Six percent of Colorado’s bridges are structurally deficient, meaning there is significant deterioration of the bridge deck, supports or other major components.

Congested roads choke commuting and commerce and cost Colorado drivers $3.1 billion each year in the form of lost time and wasted fuel. In the most congested areas, drivers lose up to $1,190 and more than two full days each year in congestion.

Over the last five years, 2,595 people were killed in traffic crashes in Colorado. Traffic crashes in Colorado in 2016 imposed $6.2 billion in economic costs.[7]

”

In conclusion, the report stated "Despite the modest funding increase provided by the FAST Act, numerous projects to improve the condition and expand the capacity of Colorado’s roads, highways, bridges and transit systems will not be able to proceed without a substantial boost in state or local transportation funding. If Colorado is unable to complete needed transportation projects it will hamper the state’s ability to improve the condition and efficiency of its transportation system or enhance economic development opportunities and quality of life."

To read the full 2018 report, click here.


Background

CDOT reports funding levels

In 2016, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) reported that from 2016 through 2040 it would need $46 billion to cover transportation costs, which included $20 billion in projects to expand transportation infrastructure. The CDOT estimated that from 2016 through 2025, it would need $19 billion, with $8.6 billion of that going toward expansion. The anticipated funding levels for the CDOT at that time were $21.1 billion for the 25-year period and $10.2 billion for the 10-year period, leaving a funding discrepancy of $24.9 billion over 25 years and $8.8 billion over the following ten years, respectively.[25]

2018 citizen initiatives

See also: Colorado 2018 ballot measures

Two citizen initiatives related to transportation funding and bond issues were on the 2018 ballot:

  • One initiative was designed to authorize $3.5 billion in transportation revenue anticipation notes (TRANs) with a total repayment cost of $5.2 billion. It would have been repaid through the allocation of an estimated $350 million per year from the state's general fund. This initiative was sponsored by the Independence Institute.
  • The other initiative, which had the backing of the Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce, was designed to issue between $3.72 billion and $9 billion in TRANs and repay the debt through a sales tax increase.

Both were defeated.

2018 compromise (Senate Bill 1)

Senate Bill 1 was approved by the legislature in the last days of the 2018 legislative session. Two initiatives, Proposition 109 ("Fix Our Damn Roads") and Proposition 110 ("Let's Go Colorado") appeared on the 2018 general election ballot in Colorado. Both measures were defeated.

Proposition 109 was designed to authorize $3.5 billion in bonds to fund statewide transportation projects including bridge expansion, construction, maintenance, and repairs, and require that the state repay the debt from the general fund without raising taxes.

Proposition 110 was designed to authorize $6 billion in bonds to fund transportation projects, establish the Transportation Revenue Anticipation Notes Citizen Oversight Committee, and raise the state sales tax rate by 0.62 percent from 2.9 percent (2018) to 3.52 percent for 20 years starting on January 1, 2019, through January 1, 2039.

SB 1 included different budget allocation and bond issue scenarios in response to whether...

  • A: neither citizen initiative issuing TRANs was approved in 2018 (which turned out to be the case);
  • B: an initiative to issue TRANs but without a tax increase (Proposition 109) or both initiatives were passed by voters in 2018; or
  • C: an initiative to issue TRANs and increase taxes (Proposition 110) to fund the repayment of the notes was passed by voters in 2018.

The different scenarios involve the lease-purchase agreement funding provided by SB 267 in 2017, which is summarized below.[6]

  • In scenario (c), in which Proposition 110 (an initiative to issue TRANs with a tax increase to repay the TRANs debt) was passed, no 2019 referral would have taken place, and SB 1 would have dictated the allocation of $50 million per year to the State Highway Fund. The lease-purchase agreement funding provided by SB 267 in 2017 would have stayed in place.
  • In scenario (b), in which Proposition 109 (an initiative to issue TRANs but without a tax increase is passed) or both were passed, no 2019 referral would have taken place, and SB 1 would have dictated the allocation of the $100 million per year from SB 267 (2017) to the repayment of the TRANs debt instead of pursuing the final three lease-purchase agreement batches of $500 million each.
  • Since neither citizen initiative was approved in November 2018, Senate Bill 1 required the proposed $2.337 billion bond issue to go before voters in November 2019. In May 2019, the state legislature passed SB 19-263, which moved the measure to the November 2020 and made amendments including lowering the amount of TRANs to be issued and, in the case of approval, repeal two rather than three $500 million lease-purchase agreements. One of the following two scenarios would then occur:


Lease-purchase agreements (Senate Bill 267 in 2017)

In 2017, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 267 allowing for four installments of $500 million in lease-purchase agreements (totaling $2 billion). A lease-purchase agreement is a financing mechanism that uses mortgages on state-owned property. Under the agreements, the state is required to sell buildings valued at $500 million. The purchaser then leases the building back to the state for 20 years, at which point, ownership of the building returns to the state. About $1.88 billion of the total proposed lease-purchase agreement amounts from Senate bill 267 were earmarked for transportation, and SB 267 also allocated $100 million in general fund revenue to the repayment of the lease-purchase agreements. If the 2021 measure passes, $500 million of lease-purchase agreements scheduled under current law for FY 2021-22 would be canceled. The cancellation of the final lease-purchase agreement was expected to increase state transportation revenue by about $840 million.[26][27]


Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The state process

In Colorado, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado secretary of state in the preceding general election. State law provides that petitioners have six months to collect signatures after the ballot language and title are finalized. State statutes require a completed signature petition to be filed three months and three weeks before the election at which the measure would appear on the ballot. The Constitution, however, states that the petition must be filed three months before the election at which the measure would appear. The secretary of state generally lists a date that is three months before the election as the filing deadline.

The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2018 ballot:

The secretary of state is responsible for signature verification. Verification is conducted through a review of petitions regarding correct form and then a 5 percent random sampling verification. If the sampling projects between 90 percent and 110 percent of required valid signatures, a full check of all signatures is required. If the sampling projects more than 110 percent of the required signatures, the initiative is certified. If less than 90 percent, the initiative fails.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Kennedy Enterprises to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $321,112.62 was spent to collect the 98,492 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $3.26.

Details about this initiative

  • Jon Caldara and Mike Krause submitted version #167 of this initiative on March 16, 2018.[4]
  • A ballot title and summary were issued for version #167 of this initiative on April 4, 2018.[4]
  • The sponsors submitted version #172 on April 6, 2018.[4]
  • On August 6, 2018, the Colorado Secretary of State's office announced via Twitter that proponents of the initiative had submitted signatures.[28]
  • On August 22, 2018, the Colorado Secretary of State's office announced that proponents of the initiative had submitted around 112,872 valid signatures and that the measure had qualified for the ballot.[29]

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Colorado

Poll times

In Colorado, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time for those who choose to vote in person rather than by mail. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[30][31]

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

In Colorado, an individual can pre-register to vote if they are at least 15 years old. Voters must be at least 18 years old to vote in any election. A voter must be a citizen of the United States and have established residence in Colorado to vote.[32]

Colorado voters can register to vote through Election Day. However, in order to automatically receive a absentee/mail-in ballot, a voter must register online, through the mail, at a voter registration agency, or driver's license examination facility at least eight days prior to Election Day. A voter that registers through a voter registration drive must submit their application no later than 22 days before the election to automatically receive an absentee/mail-in ballot. A voter can register online or submit a form in person or by fax, email, or mail.[32][33][34]

Automatic registration

See also: Automatic voter registration

Colorado automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles and certain other state agencies.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Colorado has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

See also: Same-day voter registration

Colorado allows same-day voter registration for individuals who vote in person.

Residency requirements

Colorado law requires 22 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.[33]

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Colorado does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment.[35] Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The site Go Vote Colorado, run by the Colorado Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Colorado requires voters to present non-photo identification when voting in person. If voting by mail for the first, a voter may also need to return a photocopy of his or her identification with their mail-in ballot. Click here for more information.

The following list of accepted forms of identification was current as of August 2025. Click here for the most current information, sourced directly from the Office of the Colorado Secretary of State.

“ The following documents are acceptable forms of identification:
  • A valid Colorado driver’s license or valid identification card issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Note: documents issued to not lawfully present and temporarily lawfully present individuals under Part 5 of Article 2 of Title 42, C.R.S. are not acceptable forms of identification.)
  • A valid U.S. passport.
  • A valid employee identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. government or of Colorado, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of Colorado.
  • A valid pilot’s license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the U.S.
  • A valid U.S. military identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector.
  • A copy of a current (within the last 60 days) utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector.
  • A Certificate of Degree of Indian or Alaskan Native Blood.
  • A valid Medicare or Medicaid card issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
  • A certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate for the elector.
  • Certified documentation of naturalization.
  • A valid student identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by an institute of higher education in Colorado, as defined in section 23-3.1-102(5), C.R.S..
  • A valid veteran identification card issued by the U.S. department of veterans affairs veterans health administration with a photograph of the eligible elector.
  • A valid identification card issued by a federally recognized tribal government certifying tribal membership.

Any form of identification listed above that shows your address must show a Colorado address to qualify as an acceptable form of identification.

The following documents are also considered acceptable forms of identification for voting:

  • Verification that a voter is a resident of a group residential facility, as defined in section 1-1-104(18.5), C.R.S.
  • Verification that a voter is a person committed to the department of human services and confined and eligible to register and vote shall be considered sufficient identification of such person for the purposes of section 1-2-210.5, C.R.S.
  • Written correspondence from the county sheriff or his or her designee to the county clerk indicating that a voter is confined in a county jail or detention facility.[36][7]
 ”
  • Note: SB 1, signed into law on May 12, 2025, specified that tribal IDs issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or another federal agency were also valid identification.

See also

External links

Support

Opposition

Submit links to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Same-day registration was available for those voting in person at Voter Service and Polling Centers,
  2. ↑ Same-day registration was available for those voting in person at Voter Service and Polling Centers,
  3. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Initiative #167Complete Text," accessed March 24, 2018
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Colorado Secretary of State, "2017-2018 Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results," accessed February 23, 2018
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Colorado Secretary of State, "Tracer Committee Search," accessed December 10, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "finance" defined multiple times with different content
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Legislative Council Staff, "Senate Bill 18-001, Concerning Transportation Infrastructure Funding," September 2018
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Colorado General Assembly, "2018 Blue Book," accessed October 10, 2018
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Colorado Concern, "About," accessed September 15, 2018
  10. ↑ Independence Institute, "We’re Fixing Our Damn Roads!!!" accessed May 12, 2018
  11. ↑ Page Two, "How Prop 109 forces the legislature to prioritize roads in the budget," accessed October 25, 2018
  12. ↑ The Gazette, " EDITORIAL: Colorado Springs Mayor Suthers will oppose road tax," accessed June 1, 2018
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Denver Post, "Colorado voters’ transportation options, broken down. Hint: It’s not as simple as whether to raise taxes," accessed September 12, 2018
  14. ↑ Pro 15, "Policy positions," accessed September 14, 2018
  15. ↑ Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, "2018 Business Ballot Guide," accessed September 12, 2018
  16. ↑ The Gazette, "EDITORIAL: Mayor highlights problems with sinister Prop 110 tax hike," accessed September 25, 2018
  17. ↑ Greeley Tribune, "Tribune Endorsement: Proposition 109 offers the best fix for Colorado’s roads," accessed October 16, 2018
  18. ↑ Aurora Sentinel, "ENDORSEMENT: Prop 110 is a practical solution for Colorado gridlock; Prop 109 is just dangerous whining," September 26, 2018
  19. ↑ Craig Daily Press, "Editorial: Road to the future found in Proposition 110," accessed October 18, 2018
  20. ↑ Aspen Times, "Aspen Times Editorial: Breaking down the state ballot questions," accessed October 31, 2018
  21. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named supportfin
  22. ↑ TRIP, "About," accessed July 5, 2018
  23. ↑ TRIP, "Colorado state info," accessed July 5, 2018
  24. ↑ Grand Junction Sentinel, "Roads in disrepair cost local motorists $1,500 a year, study says," accessed July 5, 2018
  25. ↑ Colorado Department of Transportation, "2016 Transportation Deficit Report," accessed May 8, 2018
  26. ↑ Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, "Major Transportation Funding Bill Headed to Governor," May 9, 2018
  27. ↑ Colorado Legislative Council Staff, "Colorado Transportation Handbook 2020," accessed January 21, 2021
  28. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named sigs
  29. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "News release: Measure that would authorize bonds for transportation projects makes the ballot," accessed August 22, 2018
  30. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Mail-in Ballots FAQs," accessed August 6, 2025
  31. ↑ LexisNexis, "Colorado Revised Statutes, § 1-7-101," accessed August 6, 2025
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Colorado Secretary of State, "Voter Registration FAQs," accessed August 6, 2025
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Colorado Secretary of State, "Colorado Voter Registration Form," accessed August 6, 2025
  34. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Go Vote Colorado," accessed August 6, 2025
  35. ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
  36. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Acceptable Forms of Identification," accessed August 6, 2025
v • e
2018 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington
Non I&R States
Political topics
 • Abortion‎ • Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Civil service‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Definition of a corporation‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Environment‎ • Federal constitutional issues‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Gambling‎ • Government accountability‎ • Healthcare‎ • Housing‎ • Hunting and fishing‎ • Labor and unions‎ • Law enforcement‎ • LGBT issues‎ • Marijuana‎ • Natural resources‎ • Pension‎ • Property‎ • Redistricting measures‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Statehood‎ • Suffrage‎ • Supermajority requirements‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Tort law‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎ • Welfare‎
Other
Flag of Colorado
v • e
State of Colorado
Denver (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Colorado_Proposition_109,_%22Fix_Our_Damn_Roads%22_Transportation_Bond_Initiative_(2018)&oldid=10218034"