Colorado lawmakers are looking to add a fee to car insurance policies that would raise funds for road infrastructure aimed at reducing vehicle collisions with wildlife, pedestrians and cyclists. 

The idea is being floated as part of a bill co-sponsored by Reps. Andrew Boesenecker, a Larimer County Democrat, and Meghan Lukens, a Steamboat Springs Democrat, and Sens. Faith Winter, a Front Range Democrat, and Dylan Roberts, a Frisco Democrat. 

“This bill creates a sustainable solution to a serious public safety problem,” Lukens said. “This bill will save lives, prevent injuries, reduce insurance costs, and protect the wildlife that defines our state. It’s a responsible investment that pays for itself many times over.” 

---

---

The “Motor Vehicle Collision Prevention” bill cleared its first hurdle, passing through the House Transportation, Housing and Local Government Committee on Tuesday, April 1 before heading to the finance committee. 

The bill proposes creating a new enterprise within the Colorado Department of Transportation and a dedicated stream of funding for infrastructure projects like traffic calming measures, bike lanes, safety projects and wildlife passages. 

---

---

The funding would come from a new itemized fee on Colorado automobile insurance policies starting January 2026. The bill proposes that the fee would start at $1.75, increase to $3.50 annually in July 2026 and increase based on inflation each following year. At the hearing, Boesenecker said this works out to be around $0.29 a month for policyholders. 

All the funding generated by the fee would be distributed to communities through grants. The majority, 80%, would go toward safety improvements for “vulnerable” road users — primarily pedestrians and cyclists. The remaining 20% of funding would go toward wildlife crossings.  

“For the Western Slope, this means significant opportunities in both categories,” Lukens said. “The wildlife portion would fund projects in key migration corridors that are prevalent in western Colorado … The pedestrian and bicycle safety funding would improve infrastructure in Western Slope communities where dangerous intersections or road sections have been identified.”

Concerns over rural districts being left out

However, in opposition of the bill, Richard Orf, representing the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, said the group was concerned it would disproportionately benefit urban areas. 

“This is yet another fee on our constituents for infrastructure investments that will certainly mostly benefit large municipalities well outside of our district,” Orf said on Tuesday. 

Bill sponsors noted that the bill addresses this concern by including language that grants should be awarded with regional considerations so that the funding is allocated statewide. The bill states that funds should be awarded in a manner that is “reasonably proportional to the amount of fee revenue collected from each region.”

Through Orf, the association — which represents Mesa, Garfield, Rio Blanco, Routt and Moffat counties — also expressed concerns that adding fees to already rising insurance costs was punitive to policyholders, that there is a separation between the fee payer (drivers) and the beneficiary (pedestrians, cyclists, etc.) and that there is not enough of a correlation between these types of projects and a reduction in motor vehicle accidents. 

In a year of significant budget cuts, bill sponsors and supporters lauded the effort for establishing new revenue rather than cannibalizing existing revenue.  

“This structure allows the enterprise to collect and distribute funds without competing with other state budget priorities,” Lukens said, calling it a “fiscally responsible approach.”  

Ted Trimpa, speaking in opposition on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, referred to it as a “tax on policyholders.”

The bill is one of two enterprise-creating pieces of legislation being considered this session. The second, HB25-1302, would create two enterprises in the Colorado Division of Insurance to generate funding for preventing damage to homes due to extreme weather events and for a wildfire catastrophe reinsurance program. 

Should both bills pass, Trimpa said this would bring Colorado’s total enterprise number to five.

“Continuing to create enterprises like this on the property and casualty insurance industry and lowering premiums is a failed strategy and disincentivizes insurers from investing capital in the Colorado market,” Trimpa added. 

Building crossings for wildlife 

As the rural representative on the bill, Lukens honed in on the impact that wildlife-vehicle collisions have on the Western Slope. 

“Annually, the state reports nearly 4,000 vehicle crashes involving wildlife, resulting in approximately $80 million in costs related to property damage, emergency response, and medical treatment,” Lukens said. “Animal strike claims exhibit significant seasonal variation, with claims peaking in the month of November.”

In 2024, nearly 7,500 animals were reported as roadkill across Colorado — the majority of which were reported in the western half of the state. The actual number struck is likely larger, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation, which tracks the reports alongside Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 

Colorado has emerged as a leader in wildlife crossings over the last decade. CDOT and its partners have built over 40 wildlife underpasses and three overpasses. 

The northwest region — home to some of the largest elk and deer herds in the country — has been a hotbed for the projects, particularly as human population and development in the region increases. 

“We’re facing a growing crisis on our roads that threatens both people and wildlife. In Colorado, the number of wildlife-vehicle collisions continues to rise as our population grows and development expands into wildlife habitat,” said Cecily DeAngelo, executive director of Roaring Fork Safe Passages. 

In the Roaring Fork Valley wildlife-vehicle collisions are the leading cause of crashes accounting for 30% of all incidents, DeAngelo added.  

A 2016 project on Colorado Highway 9 south of Kremmling has emerged as a prime example of the potential of the infrastructure to reduce collisions. Along a 10.5 mile stretch of the highway, two wildlife overpasses (the first in the state), five wildlife underpasses, 29 wildlife guards, 61 escape ramps, and 10.3 miles of wildlife fencing were constructed. In the first five years of the project, there was a 90% reduction in wildlife-vehicle collisions along this stretch, a Parks and Wildlife study shows. 

“When you consider that the average cost of hitting a deer exceeds $23,500 — including vehicle damage, medical costs, and lost work time — and that hitting larger animals like elk or moose can be significantly more expensive, these projects rapidly pay for themselves,” DeAngelo said. 

However, while there’s proof of the structure’s effectiveness, funding is hard to secure and these projects are expensive. DeAngelo said a wildlife overpass can cost between $10 million to $15 million. 

“Transportation infrastructure projects are expensive projects,” said Julia Kintsch, the principal ecologist for ECO-resolutions and board president of Summit County Safe Passages. “Having a reliable, durable funding source is just so valuable to getting these projects implemented and bringing in other sources of funding.” 

Summit County Safe Passages is currently fundraising for the final amounts needed to complete the design and construction of new wildlife fencing and crossings on the east side of Vail Pass. 

DeAngelo’s organization has prioritized six areas where wildlife crossings would have the most impact in the valley. It is now raising funds needed to construct its first crossing location between the Aspen airport and Aspen Village. 

“When I started Roaring Fork Safe Passages, I quickly learned that CDOT wasn’t prioritizing collision mitigation in our valley anytime soon — not because they didn’t recognize the need, but because they lacked the resources to address it alongside other pressing infrastructure demands,” DeAngelo said.  

The house bill would be “transformational” to the Roaring Fork effort, she added. 

“Without the enterprise or another significant funding source, we’re looking at a 5-10 year timeline for implementation of even our first crossing,” DeAngelo said. “With dedicated funding, we could potentially break ground within 2-3 years.” 

With the rise in popularity, there have been some state and federal funds set aside for wildlife crossings.

Much of the work in Colorado in recent years was supported by a cash fund created by a 2021 bill. The fund, however, has been “drawn down” in the years since and left a gap for permanent, sustainable funding for these types of projects, Lukens said.  

At the federal level, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created a Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program and set aside $350 million over five years for these projects. However, these grants have been tied to the current uncertainty around federal funding. 

Given this uncertainty, having a dedicated state funding source will be more important, DeAngelo and Kintsch both said. 

“We have to be looking further ahead,” Kintsch said. “In this current state of uncertainty, we need not only to be looking to a more diverse array of funding, but also having that reliability of a state fund validates the importance of these types of projects to Colorado and to our wildlife and also to road safety.”