The Senate Finance Committee passed the bill on a 4-3 party line vote after more than seven hours of testimony and debate on the most aggressive attempt to money into transportation in decades.

“This is about fixing structural issues that impact every single Coloradan,” said Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg, a Democrat from Boulder, who is sponsoring the bill. 

The bill goes next to the Senate Appropriations Committee, before the full Senate would have to vote on it twice before it starts over in the state House. Legislative leaders have indicated they will adjourn on May 28, with a number of major bills still in play.

A $5.2 billion package for the long-neglected transportation system in this fast-growing state directs 18% of the windfall going to new charging stations and moving vehicle fleets and transit to electrification, and alternative ways of getting around, rather than wider interstates.

Critics, especially Republicans on the committee, said the bill is a partisan play for more environmental regulations and sandbagging highway projects with added costs and delays.

Coloradans face more than $3.7 billion in new fees to pay for the package over the next decade. The rest would come will come from state stimulus money and operating budget.

The package would put $660 million into the state highway fund, $84 million for state and local multimodal projects and chip in $2.5 million to pay for studies and other momentum builders for Front Range commuter rail.

RELATED:

Transportation bill lays out fees, fares and inflation

Governor, major municipal leaders back billions in fees for Colorado transportation

INSIGHTS | What we spend on roads is overly complicated

INSIGHTS | Public dollars are a public good when they're applied to public roads

CALDARA | On transportation, we're getting played

Move beyond conventional transportation solutions

Highway director talks 10-year wish list with Colorado Concern

He said the plan “future proofs” a system that is changing fast, from gas to electricity and how people use the roads for commuting and shopping, but indexing the costs for inflation and revisiting the situation in five years to make adjustments, if necessary.

Future-proofing means ensuring electric vehicles contribute the same as combustion engines, collecting money from deliveries, indexing for inflation so the fund grows and committing future money from the state budget. 

The fees that would begin in the 2023:

• A road usage fee is 2 cents that would ratchet up annually to a maximum of 8 cents after a decade, then be indexed for inflation.
• 3.5 cents per prearranged ride in a zero-emission vehicle and 7.5 cents for every other vehicle.
• 6.9 cents for retail deliveries.
• 5.3 cents for each delivery to support a fund to transition government fleets to electric vehicles.
• Raising the $50 registration fee for electric vehicles with an index that puts EVs on parity to what combustion vehicles pay.
• Indexing the current $2 fee per day on vehicle rentals to inflation, exempting car-sharing programs.
• Changing the Statewide Bridge Enterprise to the Statewide Bridge and Tunnel Enterprise, and authorizing its board to use a fee on diesel and deliveries.

Transportation will reach into Coloradans’ pocket, whether the bill makes it into law or not.

Suzanne Kutsch, vice president of her family’s CAST Transportation in Commerce City and chair of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, said the 650 companies in her trade group were divided on the bill, but saw the need as so great they supported the bill.

Delays lead to higher fuel, maintenance and driver pay, she said.

The cost of those delays get passed on in the freight rates that eventually trickle down to customers.

“This unseen expense represents a hidden tax we all pay whether you drive or not,” she said, “since it’s buried in the cost of every product we buy or use.”

Colorado is way more congested than surrounding states because those states are investing more in their highways.

Republicans on the committee offered amendments to avert a fee hike. Scott proposed taking $2 billion from the state’s federal stimulus money and applying it to roads and bridges. The legislature could leverage some of the money and put the decision before voters.

“Let’s leave the taxpayer alone and get this show on the road,” said Sen. Ray Scott, a Republican from Grand Junction.

Fenberg said guidelines won’t allow previously approved stimulus money to be spent on transportation, and the federal infrastructure bill hasn’t been introduced in Congress.

Scott proposed another amendment in vain to use all the money in the state’s existing 10-year priority plan, which is all projects. 

Sen. Paul Lundeen. R-Monument, said electric vehicles, typically driven by people with more money, are being favored in the bill as a policy choice over combustion vehicles driven by people who have less.

“There is a thumb on the scale that is driving a particular human behavior,” he said.

Sen. Faith Winter, a bill co-sponsor, agreed it was a policy choice, but it’s a choice that’s being driven by climate goals and changes in the market, with Ford and General Motors both moving to produce more vehicles.

Fenberg noted that the bill raises fees on electric vehicles to put them on par with combustion vehicles. “The last I checked, this has been the No. 1 request of Republicans in this building,” the Senate Democratic leader said.

After Mike Kopp, president and CEO of Colorado Concern who is leading a transportation coalition called A Way Forward, spoke in support of the bill, Scott and Lundeen questioned the former Republican senator about his support for environmental aspects of the bill.

“We recognize it’s impossible to write a bill like this that’s free of political flaw,” Kopp said to Lundeen.

After Scott brought up that many Republicans would like to see more money going directly to roads and bridges, Kopp responded, “We will do our best to work through that, as we have many other parts of the bill.”

Fix Colorado Roads and the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance said the bill requires duplicative environmental requirements that would slow projects to add lanes and add unnecessary costs.

“We seek the opportunity further amend this bill,” Sandra Hagen Solin, who represents the two organizations, told the committee, with no luck. “At present these provisions are untenable and it’s a bridge too far.”

From the income, 60% will go to the state. The other 40% will got to municipalities and counties, including $85 million for local “Main Street” projects. The Metro Mayors Conference and the Colorado Municipal League endorsed the bill.

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock talked about a “decade of stagnation” in dealing with Colorado’s transportation needs, as lawmakers fought to a standstill on how to fund roads and bridges.

He added the city’s endorsement to the package and congratulated those who crafted the legislation for finding a solution.

“We see it really as difference between leadership and partisanship,” Hancock said. “Every year we watch as the legislature goes into session with our collective breath held in high hopes that we will finally have a breakthrough on a transportation bill.”

Boulder Mayor Sam Weaver called the bill “transformative” added cited its lean into electric vehicles and multimodal travel as a reason for the city’s official support

“Colorado is known for our beautiful outdoor spaces,” he told the committee. “And a true Colorado transportation system is one that helps us protect the lands and nature we cherish so much. It is a system that helps us get to those places both efficiently and in a variety of different ways.”