House committee advances bill aimed at shielding health and schools from proposed road‑funding ballot measure

House Bill 14‑30, the Colorado Budget Protection Act, was advanced out of the House Transportation, Housing and Local Government Committee on a 9‑4 vote after more than three hours of testimony and debate.

Rep. Basenacker, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee the measure is a short‑term fix intended only to blunt the budgetary shock the legislature would face if Initiative 175 is approved by voters. Basenacker and co‑sponsor Rep. Sirota said nonpartisan analyses show the ballot proposal would reallocate roughly $700,000,000 over the first affected fiscal years, diverting more than $500,000,000 from the general fund and nearly $200,000,000 from cash funds that would likely require a general fund backfill.

"We shouldn't be filling potholes just to close hospitals in your communities," Basenacker said, urging lawmakers to protect Medicaid, K‑12 and other core services.

Supporters included hospital leaders and education groups who stressed concrete local impacts. Jeff Teeman, president and CEO of the Colorado Hospital Association, said many rural hospitals operate on narrow margins and that cuts tied to the ballot measure would force service reductions or closures. Dr. Steve Federico of Denver Health and Jennifer Riley of Memorial Regional Health each told the committee their systems would face large Medicaid enrollment and revenue effects; Riley said her rural hospital is already absorbing a $150,000 reimbursement cut and that further reductions would threaten staffing and essential services.

"A measure that improves pavement while lengthening the drive to a hospital is not a win for rural Colorado," Teeman said.

Education groups and child welfare advocates also testified for the bill. Matt Cook of the Colorado Association of School Boards said diverting hundreds of millions would likely reintroduce a budget stabilization factor and force painful cuts to classrooms; Kevin Vick of the Colorado Education Association warned the measure would reverse recent progress on school funding.

Opponents, including the Colorado Contractors Association and asphalt industry representatives, said the committee was being asked to overturn the will of voters and that Initiative 175 is a straightforward prioritization of existing motor‑vehicle sales and parts revenue for roads. Tony Milo, CEO of the Colorado Contractors Association, called HB 14‑30 an "end‑around the voters" and said voters believe the fees they pay should go to road repairs.

Committee members pressed both sides on details: several asked whether general fund transfers historically have funded construction (witnesses said most road funding now comes from fuel and registration fees, and that the general fund contribution has been reduced), and others asked how sponsors would explain the tradeoffs to constituents.

Two technical amendments to HB 14‑30 were approved in committee (L1, correcting a transfer schedule tied to the bill’s effective date; and L2, a fill‑in‑the‑blank correction). After sponsors’ closing remarks framing the bill as a narrow insurance policy to protect health care and education, the committee voted 9‑4 to refer the amended bill to the Appropriations Committee.

What’s next: HB 14‑30 will be considered by Appropriations. If it advances, legislators will continue to debate the constitutional and fiscal tradeoffs between preserving voter‑driven road funding priorities and protecting statewide services from revenue shifts.