Ballot Issue 7AFront Range Passenger Rail District sales tax and debt
Who votes on it
The following information is provided by the Front Range Passenger Rail District (District) and applies only to voters residing within the District boundaries. The District boundaries include the following municipalities: Arvada, Boulder, Bow Mar, Broomfield, Centennial, Cherry Hills Village, Colorado Springs, Columbine Valley, Denver, Edgewater, Englewood, Federal Heights, Fort Collins, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Lafayette, Lakeside, Lakewood, Littleton, Longmont, Louisville, Loveland, Manitou Springs, Mountain View, Pueblo, Sheridan, Starkville, Superior, Trinidad, Westminster, and Wheat Ridge; as well as the Sterling Ranch Colorado Metropolitan District Nos. 1‑7.
Quoted from the district's notice in the Blue Book. About 800,000 voters outside the district (in parts of Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas and Weld counties) received 7A on their ballots by mistake; the Secretary of State says only votes from eligible voters will count. KUNC, Oct 8, 2026
In plain words
Only voters in the Front Range Passenger Rail District vote on 7A. The district includes 31 cities and towns from Fort Collins to Trinidad. It would add a sales tax of one third of a penny on each $1 you spend (0.333 percent), raising about $295 million a year, and let the district borrow $580 million. The money would build and run the Colorado Connector (CoCo), a passenger train along the Front Range. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
Before and after
| Question | Today | If 7A passes |
|---|---|---|
| District sales tax rate | None | 0.333 percent (one third of a penny on a $1 purchase) |
| What is not taxed? | Not applicable | Items exempt under Colorado law, including gasoline, food, home electricity and gas, prescription drugs and medical supplies |
| Yearly tax money for the district | None. First full year spending without the tax is estimated at $100,000 | Up to $295,000,000 in the first full year (2028), and whatever it raises after that |
| Borrowing (bonds, money the district pays back with interest) | $0 | $580,000,000, with a total payback of $785,000,000 and at most $35,000,000 a year |
| End date for the tax | Not applicable | None given in the ballot question |
| Who checks the spending? | Not applicable | An independent auditor and a rotating group of citizen taxpayers who live in the district, every year |
From the official analysis source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
Example
Illustration only: at 0.333 percent, a $100 purchase of taxable goods would cost about 33 cents more. A $30 grocery bill of food would cost nothing more, because food is exempt. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
Biggest change
- A new 0.333 percent sales tax in the district, with no end date in the ballot question, raising up to $295 million a year, plus $580 million in borrowing, to build and run passenger rail from Pueblo to Fort Collins. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
Who it affects most: People who shop in the 31 district cities and towns, who would pay the new tax, and Front Range travelers the train would serve.
Cost to the state: No cost to the state is listed. The district estimates the tax would raise up to $295,000,000 in 2028, its first full year, and about $144,000,000 in 2027. It could borrow $580,000,000, to be paid back at a total cost of $785,000,000.
Our plain-words summary at an 8th-grade reading level. Every line points to its source.
What your vote means
The district would charge a 0.333 percent sales tax, about $295 million a year, and could borrow $580 million to build and run the CoCo train.
The district would get no new tax and no new borrowing.
Our plain-words summary.
Why people want it, and why others object
Why this is on the ballot
- This is a local tax question from the Front Range Passenger Rail District, not a statewide measure. Voters inside the district decide it. It asks them to let the district keep the money as a voter-approved change under TABOR, the part of the state constitution that limits government revenue. The ballot question says the purpose is to take cars off highways, connect travelers to jobs, colleges, sports arenas and entertainment along the Front Range, and improve station areas and local connections to stations. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
Why supporters want it
- The Colorado Connector (CoCo) will link communities from Pueblo to Fort Collins with a reliable alternative to driving along the Front Range, where highway congestion, delays, collisions, and increasing travel demand make travel on I-25 difficult, time-consuming, and stressful. A rail connection will expand transportation capacity, reduce dependence on personal vehicles, and provide another travel option, including for residents who cannot drive, choose not to drive, or face barriers to vehicle ownership. The service will complement existing transit systems and improve access to employment centers, educational institutions, entertainment venues, and airport connections. Special-event stations will be within walking distance of professional sports venues in Denver. Rail travel provides an affordable alternative to automobile ownership, which can cost up to $10,000 annually, and offers transportation costs that are less dependent on changing gasoline prices. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
- Passenger rail on Colorado's Front Range will help reduce traffic, vehicle miles traveled, fuel consumption, and transportation-related emissions. By shifting trips from automobiles to rail, the Colorado Connector will improve air quality and provide a more energy-efficient mode of travel. Colorado's transportation emissions are already projected to land above the state's 2030 climate target. The service will reduce emissions by an amount roughly equivalent to removing about 29,000 cars from roads. Rail service encourages compact, walkable development near stations, supports housing opportunities, and reduces transportation costs for households. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
- Highway expansion alone cannot adequately address long-term transportation needs, and a balanced transportation system should include additional travel options. Colorado already has an extensive highway network, and additional highway spending is producing diminishing benefits in travel efficiency, safety, and comfort, while passenger rail represents an underutilized transportation investment. Colorado’s highway projects are already heavily subsidized. CoCo does not take funding away from highways. It is new, dedicated funding for the one mode Colorado has never meaningfully subsidized: intercity passenger rail. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
- Unlike projects in other states, the Colorado Connector will use partnerships with railroads on their existing corridors and infrastructure rather than requiring entirely new rail lines, reducing costs and limiting the need for major new construction and eminent domain. Using existing tracks provides a more cost-effective and less risky approach than constructing entirely new rail corridors. The project is planned in phases, allowing improvements to occur incrementally, with starter service on track to open in 2029. All communities from Fort Collins to Pueblo will see service within five years. Annual audits and taxpayer oversight add accountability measures to help ensure funds are used as intended. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
- The measure is an economic development investment. Improved regional connectivity will expand access to jobs, education, housing, tourism, entertainment, and commercial opportunities throughout Colorado's Front Range. The measure also includes a $1.5 billion local return program that station communities can use for local infrastructure, affordable housing, and other transportation projects in corridor communities. Increased mobility among major population and employment centers will strengthen regional economic connections, support business activity, create construction and transportation-related jobs, and help accommodate future population growth while creating a more balanced and interconnected transportation network. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
Why opponents object
- The proposal will impose a permanent 0.333% sales and use tax throughout the District regardless of whether residents ride the train. The tax is regressive because lower-income households spend a larger share of their income on taxable purchases and would be added to existing state, regional, and local sales taxes that already total 8% to 9% in some communities. The measure will raise approximately $295 million annually, authorize $580 million in debt with a stated repayment cost of $785 million, and continue indefinitely without a sunset provision. Voters are being asked to approve a large, permanent tax before final costs, fares, schedules, passenger ridership levels, agreements with the railroads, and full-corridor delivery dates are known. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
- Comparable projects have experienced cost overruns, delays, reduced scope, budget shortfalls, and unfulfilled promises. Prior regional rail commitments collected taxes for more than 20 years without delivering rail service to some communities. In some communities, more than $100 million has been paid toward prior rail plans without receiving service. Residents in those communities could pay both existing rail taxes and the proposed tax without receiving previously promised rail service. The District is a newly formed authority without a capital project record and could leave taxpayers responsible for additional costs if estimates are exceeded. Starter service, including three daily trips between Denver and Fort Collins, could proceed without the proposed tax, and actual demand and ridership should be demonstrated before additional taxes are approved. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
- The train will not adequately meet Front Range travel needs because most trips require door-to-door flexibility. Transportation choices are driven by travel time and the proposed train will not be competitive with driving. Travelers often need direct access to workplaces, schools, airports, recreation areas, trailheads, and event venues or need to transport bicycles, pets, luggage, camping equipment, and recreational gear. Some stations will be distant from destinations, the route will not directly serve the airport, and limited daily frequencies and fixed schedules will make the service impractical for many commuters and event travelers. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
- Existing buses, shuttles, express lanes, car travel, and other transit services already provide the Front Range more flexible and frequent transportation at a lower public cost. The rail line will duplicate or compete with existing service while offering limited daily trips and could weaken existing transit services. Prior rail investments have cost more than originally projected while producing ridership levels substantially below projections. Shared freight corridors, speed limitations, station access requirements, and travel times could make the train slower than or no more convenient than driving or existing bus service. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
- Ridership may be insufficient to reduce congestion. Rail service could increase emissions if trains operate with low passenger loads or generate trips that otherwise will not occur. Trail and roadway crossings could create safety and access concerns, including delays, closures, signals, and conflicts along existing freight corridors. Investments in roads, buses, transit connections, airport access, and existing transportation infrastructure could provide greater public benefit at lower cost and with greater flexibility than a fixed-route passenger rail system. source: Blue Book, p. 100-103
Who backs each side
Most totals are through October 4, 2026 (Rocky Mountain Voice, Oct 6); some are as of September 21 (Colorado Politics). Spending grows until Election Day. These figures come from news reports of state campaign finance filings and were not checked line by line against the filings.
- For: Coloradans for CoCo reported over $700,000. Individual donor amounts were not confirmed in TRACER.
- Against: no formal committee found.
Sources: Rocky Mountain Voice, Oct 6, 2026 · Colorado Politics, Sept 25, 2026 · Colorado Secretary of State: committees for and against 2026 measures · TRACER campaign finance search · CPR voter guide: 7A · KUNC, Oct 8, 2026: 800,000 voters outside the district got 7A by mistake
Supporter and opponent points are the summaries of written comments printed in the district's notice in the Blue Book, quoted word for word. They are not the Legislative Council's analysis. We don't endorse either side.
At a glance
Our plain-words summary of the official Blue Book analysis. Every line points to its source.
Who it affects
- People who live in the Front Range Passenger Rail District: 31 cities and towns, including Fort Collins, Boulder, Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo and Trinidad, plus the Sterling Ranch metropolitan districts. Only these voters vote on it. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- Shoppers and businesses in the district, who would pay a new 0.333 percent sales and use tax (one third of a penny on a $1 purchase). (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- Not taxed under the measure: purchases exempt under Colorado law, including gasoline, food, home electricity and gas, prescription drugs and medical supplies. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- Communities the ballot question says the rail service would connect: Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Sterling Ranch, Littleton, Denver, Westminster, Broomfield, Louisville, Boulder, Longmont, Loveland and Fort Collins. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- The Front Range Passenger Rail District, which would build, run and maintain the Colorado Connector (CoCo) rail service. An independent auditor and a rotating group of citizen taxpayers would review the money each year. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
How many: The district estimates the tax would raise up to $295,000,000 in its first full fiscal year (2028). The Blue Book does not give a count of residents or households in the district.
Money: economic and budget impact
- District revenue: a tax increase of up to $295,000,000 in the first full fiscal year (2028), and whatever it raises each year after that. About $144,000,000 is estimated for 2027, the first partial year. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- District debt: $580,000,000 in borrowing, with a total repayment cost of $785,000,000 and a maximum yearly repayment of $35,000,000. The district has no debt now. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- District spending without the tax: estimated at $100,000 in the first full fiscal year. Spending was $6,544,584 (estimated) in 2026, up from $83,136 in 2022. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- The district could keep all the tax money, contributions and investment income as a voter-approved revenue change under TABOR. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- No state budget effect is listed. The district's notice gives no estimate of cost per household. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
A 0.333 percent sales and use tax would start in the district, and the district could borrow $580,000,000. The money would go to build, run and maintain Colorado Connector passenger rail and station area improvements and local connections. The ballot question gives no end date for the tax. This is a district tax question, not a change to the state constitution or state law.
The district does not get the new tax or the new debt. The district estimates its first full fiscal year spending without the tax at $100,000.
Not yet known
- How much the tax would cost a typical household per year.
- How many people live in the district.
- Fares, schedules, ridership and when each city would get service. The Blue Book section gives these only in the arguments.
- What rail service, if any, would happen if the measure fails.
Can it actually be enforced?
Short answer: The tax and borrowing would be legally in place once district voters approve them. Whether trains actually run depends on things the vote does not settle, such as agreements with the railroads that own the tracks.
- This is a local district tax and debt question, not a change to state law or the constitution. Only voters inside the Front Range Passenger Rail District vote on it. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- Under TABOR, a yes vote is the voter approval the district needs. The district could then collect the 0.333 percent tax, keep the revenue, and borrow $580 million. The ballot question gives no end date for the tax. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- Who carries it out: the Front Range Passenger Rail District would build, run and maintain the rail service. An independent auditor and a rotating group of citizen taxpayers would review the money each year. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- Dependence on railroads: the plan uses partnerships with railroads on their existing tracks. Opponents note that final agreements with the railroads, final costs, fares and schedules are not yet known. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
- Track record: opponents point to earlier regional rail promises that collected taxes for years without delivering service to some communities, and note the district has no capital project record. Supporters point to phased building and annual audits. (Blue Book, p. 100-103 )
Not yet known
- What federal approvals, if any, the rail service would need, and whether federal funding is part of the plan. The district's notice does not say.
- What would happen to the tax money if the rail service is delayed or cut back.
This is our reading of the cited law, not legal advice. Court outcomes are uncertain.
Official ballot wording
Official ballot wording, word for word (tap to open)
Word for word from the district's notice in the Blue Book.
SHALL FRONT RANGE PASSENGER RAIL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $295,000,000 ANNUALLY AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, AND SHALL FRONT RANGE PASSENGER RAIL DISTRICT DEBT BE INCREASED $580,000,000, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF $785,000,000; TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN COLORADO CONNECTOR (COCO) PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ON COLORADO’S FRONT RANGE AND CONNECT COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING PUEBLO, COLORADO SPRINGS, STERLING RANCH, LITTLETON, DENVER, WESTMINSTER, BROOMFIELD, LOUISVILLE, BOULDER, LONGMONT, LOVELAND, AND FORT COLLINS; IN ORDER TO:
• REMOVE VEHICLES FROM HIGHWAYS AND INCREASE TRAVEL CAPACITY;
• CONNECT TRAVELERS TO EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, COLLEGES, SPORTS ARENAS, AND ENTERTAINMENT HUBS ALONG THE FRONT RANGE; AND
• INVEST IN STATION AREA IMPROVEMENTS AND LOCAL CONNECTIONS TO RAIL STATIONS;
BY ESTABLISHING A 0.333% SALES AND USE TAX (EQUAL TO ONE THIRD OF A PENNY ON A $1 PURCHASE), WITH EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER COLORADO LAW, INCLUDING THOSE FOR GASOLINE, FOOD, RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY AND GAS, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES;
AND TO RETAIN ALL SUCH REVENUES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME ON REVENUES AND DEBT PROCEEDS, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER SECTION 20 OF ARTICLE X OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION;
AND REQUIRING THAT ALL SUCH DEDICATED REVENUES BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND A ROTATING GROUP OF CITIZEN TAXPAYERS WHO LIVE IN THE DISTRICT?
Fiscal information from the district
The district's fiscal figures, word for word (tap to open)
| Fiscal Year | Spending |
|---|---|
| 2028 (estimated, first full fiscal year) | $295,000,000 |
| 2027 (estimated, first partial fiscal year) | $144,000,000 |
| 2026 (estimated) | $6,544,584 |
| 2025 (actual) | $13,424,784 |
| 2024 (actual) | $3,569,335 |
| 2023 (actual) | $1,470,744 |
| 2022 (actual) | $83,136 |
Overall percentage change in fiscal year spending over the five-year period from 2022 to 2026: 7,732%. Overall dollar change: $6,461,448.
| Proposed District Tax Increase | |
|---|---|
| Estimated maximum dollar amount of proposed tax increase in first full fiscal year | $295,000,000 |
| Estimated first full fiscal year spending without the increase | $100,000 |
| Proposed Bonded Debt | |
| Proposed Principal Amount | $580,000,000 |
| Total Repayment Cost | $785,000,000 |
| Maximum Annual Repayment Cost | $35,000,000 |
The district has no bonded debt outstanding ($0 principal, $0 total repayment cost, $0 maximum annual repayment cost).
Note that the Blue Book goes to print earlier than the constitutional deadline for the submission of comments for and against the proposal. Please visit the District’s website at www.frprdistrict.com to review summaries of any additional comments received.
Latest news
Recent reporting from a range of outlets, newest first. We link to it; we don't endorse it.
- 2026-10-08 KUNC: 800,000 Colorado voters received a passenger rail ballot question they cannot vote on
- 2026-10-08 The Colorado Sun: Only eligible votes on Colorado passenger rail ballot question will be counted, secretary of state says
- 2026-10-08 Colorado Politics: Panelists discuss costs, benefits of Front Range rail tax proposal
- 2026-10-07 CPR News: 800,000 voters in Colorado will see ballots that incorrectly include the Front Range Passenger Rail measure
- 2026-09-30 The Colorado Sun: Ballot Issue 7A: Front Range voters will weigh sales tax hike to pay for passenger train service
- 2026-09-25 CPR News: Voter guide: Ballot Issue 7A, Front Range rail
- 2026-08-28 Colorado Newsline: Front Range cities will vote on tax measure to fund Colorado Connector rail service
Coverage of all the statewide measures
- 2026-10-06 Rocky Mountain Voice: What's on your 2026 Colorado ballot: all 14 statewide measures
- 2026-09-25 Colorado Politics: Major donors fuel Colorado ballot measure fights across the state
- 2026-09-25 CPR News: 2026 Colorado state ballot measures voter guide
What people are saying
Official campaign accounts on each side, and public posts. Links only: nothing here loads from social media sites. We link to posts; we don't endorse them.
No official campaign accounts listed yet.
No official campaign accounts listed yet.