Proposed Colorado ballot measure would direct sporting‑goods sales tax to conservation, split proceeds among GOCO and wildfire programs

Amanda Little, legislative council staff, opened a Feb. 19, 2026 hearing in HCR 0109 to review a proposed citizen initiative that would designate an amount of state sales tax revenue approximating receipts from sporting‑goods sales and transfer that amount into a newly created Conserve and Protect Fund for water, land, forests and wildfire prevention.

At the hearing, Pierce Lively of the Office of Legislative Legal Services read the proposal’s stated purposes and distribution rules. The initiative would direct the state treasurer to transfer an amount equal to approximate sporting‑goods sales tax revenue to the Conserve and Protect Fund and then distribute that money annually as follows: 47.5% to the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, 47.5% to a Colorado Wildfire Prevention and Wild and Water Fund created by the initiative, 2.5% to an outdoor equity fund, and 2.5% to an outdoor recreation economic development cash fund. For the 2027–28 fiscal year, the initiative sets a transitional split for amounts routed into the wildfire and water fund: $10,000,000 to the prescribed fire claims cash fund; then 50% of the remainder to forest restoration and wildfire mitigation grant programs and healthy‑forest/vibrant‑communities funding as determined by the state forester; and 50% of the remainder to the wildfire mitigation capacity development fund and the Colorado Water Conservation Board construction fund as determined by the executive director of the Department of Natural Resources.

Proponents in the room — including Brandon Witt, Martha Tierney (counsel) and Aaron Citron — said the single subject of the initiative is conservation funding for wildfire prevention, water, land, parks and wildlife. Legislative staff noted the measure’s designation of the revenue as a voter‑approved revenue change could affect the estimated adjustment factor used in state tax‑credit calculations; proponents pointed to subsection 4(d) in the draft, which lays out math intended to avoid reducing tax credits, and said the goal is to maintain the status quo for those credits.

During the hearing staff and proponents agreed to several drafting clarifications: specifying whether transfers must occur "on July 1" rather than "by July 1" to avoid fiscal‑year timing problems; stating the associated fiscal year (for example, the 2027–28 fiscal year) where that linkage is needed; clarifying which calculation in the December revenue forecast is applied first to avoid circular reductions; and fixing an ambiguous instruction that currently reads "50% of the remaining money" so that it explicitly references the prior subsection and the order of distributions.

The hearing adjourned after proponents agreed to make those clarifying edits and the staff indicated the remaining technical questions were largely resolved. No formal vote occurred at the hearing; the meeting was limited to proponents’ representatives and staff review under the statutory initiative‑review process.

Next steps: proponents are expected to revise draft language to incorporate the clarifications discussed; Legislative Council staff will incorporate technical comments into their memorandum and may reconvene or include the changes in the written report to proponents.