A Republican bill to let voters decide if the state should use bonds to fund more than $3 billion for transportation projects passed two Senate committees and a late vote Thursday night on the Senate floor. But given the resistance to the idea already stated by House Democratic leadership, it could be D.O.A. if it makes it to the House floor.

The bill, SB 16-210, sponsored by Majority Whip Randy Baumgardner, R-Hot Sulphur Springs, and Sen. Ray Scott, R-Grand Junction, would put the bonding question to voters either during the 2016, 2017 or 2018 election cycle. Republicans have talked about so-called trans bonds as a way to fund road projects in the state throughout the session, and a previous version of a trans bond bill died during the 2015 legislative session.

During a Senate hearing, groups ranging from Colorado Municipal League to various chamber groups across the state voiced support for increasing funding to transportations any way the state can manage to do it.

Unlike last year’s attempt at a bond bill, which drew the opposition of the Colorado Department of Transportation, the state agency has taken a neutral position on this year’s bill. The bill’s financing mechanism would dedicate a small portion of the state’s net sales and use tax revenue to fund bond payments.

“We most appreciate the fact it that (Baumgardner) worked hard this session to identify a funding source that we can use to pay for those projects to help pay for those bonds,” said Herman Stockinger, CDOT government relations director, during the bill’s hearing in Senate Finance Committee Thursday. “We’ve always said at CDOT that bonding is a finance mechanism not a funding mechanism.

(Baumgardner) is providing that funding mechanism that goes a long way toward paying off the bonds we’d issue. The thing that’s nagging in the back of our mind about the funding stream is what if a future Legislature is in a serious economic downturn with revenue that’s dropping. Our concern because those general funds are helping make the payments, if the Legislature was forced not to provide those funds to CDOT, then we’d be on the hook with the existing revenue stream for those bonds.”

The possibility of funding drying up if the economy takes a turn was a reason House Speaker Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, D-Gunbarrel, said she was uncomfortable with a trans bond bill earlier this week. Hullinghorst made the comments during a signing ceremony for the 2016-2017 state budget on Tuesday.

“I think that the one major concern with that bill. … is that we don’t have a funding source that’s reliable for that and at a time where we’re just stretching as best we can to make sure we fund programs in the state of Colorado that are important priorities to everybody,” Hullinghorst said during the budget press conference Tuesday. “The only way you can have that stationary funding source to pay off bonds would probably be to go into the general fund additionally if you don’t have a good funding source and that just means you take it out of K-12 education. It’s our biggest bucket. And it’s not my goal to leave K-12 education funding in any more jeopardy than it is already. And I think that’s exactly what it does if you don’t have funding source.”

Another sticking point with Democrats could be an amendment added by Senate Finance Committee Chair Tim Neville, R-Littleton, that would keep any money raised by the trans bonds from going to mass transit or other non-automobile related projects. Sen. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, said during the committee hearing that the amendment switched his vote from a “yes” to a “no.” The bill passed out of committee on a 3-2 vote.

Baumgardner emphasized that Neville’s amendment wasn’t his idea.

“Depending on how the bill comes out of the Senate, I think with CDOT being neutral, with the contractors in support this year who were vehemently against it last year, with all the support we have, people are realizing that we’re doing it for them the people inside this building, these 100 people, I’m not doing it for them, I’m doing if for the people of the state of Colorado who say we need our roads fixed,” Baumgardner told The colorado Statesman after the hearing.

While there has been talk about a trans bond bill and a switch of the hospital provider fee being part of a deal to appease both sides of the aisle, Baumgardner said his bill had nothing to with a provider fee bill and that debate shouldn’t play into his bill’s success.

“This has nothing to do with hospital provider fee,” Baumgardner said. “I’m not even going to go to that conversation. This is not trading this for something else. If you don’t like it, vote against it. Then you can answer to your consultants on why you didn’t fix the roads.”

— Ramsey@coloradostatesman.com