State lawmakers have made boosting transportation funding a top priority this year. Negotiations have been underway for months and they are ongoing. Democrats and Republicans involved in the talks seem as committed to making a deal happen as they are anxious about keeping all the moving parts turning in the right direction.

Major roadways need to be expanded to the tune of billions of dollars. There are this year as in years past many interested parties seeking to influence any eventual deal – local and regional interests, business interests, political interests, ideological interests, all locked in complex high-stakes minuet.

That’s why sources close to negotiations were surprised last week when the Colorado chapter of big-money small-government group Americans for Prosperity came out swinging, long before the contours of a deal have taken shape.

The group sent out a press release announcing its support of bonding to pay for near-term projects but its opposition to any new related statewide tax increase.

“Currently, only 5 percent of the state budget goes to transportation,” read the release, before quoting Executive Director Michael Fields, who pulled no punches:

“The long-term solution is to permanently dedicate money from the general fund to pay for roads, but TRANS bonds is a common sense short-term solution,” he said. “Without raising taxes, we could bond the same percentage of gas tax money that we did in 1999, and get the $3.5 billion that the governor says we need for ‘shovel ready projects.’

“The fact is, $28.5 billion is enough to meet the needs of the state. The last four statewide tax hikes have been crushed at the ballot box.”

The announcement linked to a citizen petition in support of the AFP position.

Democrats partly blame Americans for Prosperity for the failure last year of a popular proposal to reclassify the state’s hospital provider fee, an accounting move that would have freed up hundreds of millions for discretionary spending. AFP worked to build and maintain Republican opposition to the proposal from the very start of the legislative session. House Speaker Crisanta Duran, D-Denver, then House majority leader, lamented the role played by AFP. She said the group might be more accurately referred to as “Americans for Potholes.”

In a statement sent to The Colorado Statesman, Sandra Hagen Solin, who represents Fix Colorado Roads, a coalition of business and regional economic development groups, echoed other sources close to negotiations in calling on advocacy groups to “see the silver lining in a compromise where voter needs are put above silo interests.”

Hagen Solin was addressing advocacy groups generally, but she was no doubt thinking of Fields.

“Discussions surrounding transportation and transportation funding are going to provoke lively discussions at the Capitol and certainly among interest groups,” read her statement. “But, unlike previous attempts, the mood to get something done this year is more intense than ever before. Lawmakers know inaction is not an option. Both sides are right in the debate.

“There must be both reprioritization of the general fund and the creation of a new revenue stream, possibly through taxes, in order to bridge our state’s funding gap. A real solution is going to be built from both sides of the funding equation. Fix Colorado Roads calls on lawmakers to openly weigh all options that may be presented to them in the coming weeks.”

The Statesman asked Fields to elaborate on his stance. The below Q&A has been edited slightly for length and clarity.

***

Colorado Statesman: So, Michael, people at the Capitol are saying AFP’s strong early stance threatens negotiations. “Geesh, what is with that guy?” would be the G-rated version. Why not keep your powder dry until we see something take shape?

Michael Fields: I’m shocked, shocked! that people at the Capitol are upset [laughs].

Of course we came out right away against a tax hike. When it comes to talk about bringing a tax measure to the people, you can never speak out early enough. The whole point is to get out ahead of these kinds of proposals to kill any momentum. When conservatives are negotiating about raising taxes, then they’re talking on terms set by Democrats.

I’m glad our position and our petition is making negotiations tougher if those negotiations include a tax hike measure.”

So you’re saying let’s just do a new version of the 1999 transportation bonds deal?

We support the TRANS bond proposal… We can re-bond and pay for it the same way we did in 1999. We can complete the major I-70 and I-25 projects within the current CDOT budget. The gas tax brings in more money than it did in 1999. It was $334 million per year then. It’s $500 million per year now.”

In 1999, Colorado had $170 million a year from the federal gas tax to pay back the bond. CDOT is going to say it needs all that just to maintain the projects it proposed back then and that are now completed.But today, with $500 million in gas tax revenue, we have more money for maintenance too.

What I’m saying is there are two options within TRANS bonds:

One, re-bond the same amount, $170 million, and get a $2 billion bond to fix I-25 and I-70. This would leave $330 million of federal gas tax left over.

Two, take half of the current federal gas tax, like we did in 1999, which would now amount to $250 million. This could be bonded for the $3.5 billion that the governor says we need for shovel ready projects.We don’t need to raise any additional revenue.

A lot of people involved are betting on the Legislature referring a bipartisan plan to the voters to just raise some kind of taxes temporarily for roads. They say, there’s just not enough money, and that it’s in the spirit of the conservative Taxpayer Bill of Rights to ask the people for more money. What’s wrong with that idea?

There’s pressure at the Legislature to say that the budget numbers don’t add up, but that’s because people at the Capitol just want to raise more revenue.

Coloradans don’t want to raise their taxes. They clearly have no appetite for tax increases and they keep voting them down. We see it again and again.

I really think that, if lawmakers vote for a tax hike referendum, if they push this to the ballot, then they’re just punting on transportation funding. A tax hike put to the public will never pass. I talked to [The Independence Institute’s Jon] Caldara about it. He said if they run another ‘Shall taxes be increased’ initiative this year, he’d be willing to consider teaming up with us to run an initiative that begins ‘Shall we simply pay for transportation upgrades from within the current budget.’ That way voters would have a choice to fund roads with or without a tax increase. Which do you think they’ll choose?

You don’t seem worried that you might be making it difficult for people to make a deal and move the ball forward after years of trying and failing?

I’m not convinced they’ll pass anything at all. Speaker Duran said securing transit funding is a 10 out of 10 priority. Republicans don’t agree. They want to fix roads. They put transit as a lower priority.

Republicans are also claiming that they won’t support anything that’s not revenue neutral in the first year, but all that means is a tax increase in future years – which conservatives won’t like.

– john@coloradostatesman.com