Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation
Routes about $175 million a year of existing sporting-goods sales tax to conservation and wildfire work, exempt from TABOR.
Cheat sheet The whole measure in 30 seconds tap to open
Existing sales tax revenue from sporting goods is directed to conservation, wildfire mitigation and outdoor recreation programs, and exempted from the state revenue limit.
That revenue stays in the general budget and subject to the TABOR limit, spent on priorities the legislature sets each year or refunded to taxpayers when required.
Strongest case for
It directs needed money to recreation access, land protection, wildfire mitigation and watershed restoration without raising tax rates or changing the price of anything, funding trusted programs like Great Outdoors Colorado, which has run conservation projects for over 30 years.
Strongest case against
It is a tax increase in disguise, because it reduces or eliminates future TABOR refunds - every dollar the state keeps is a dollar less in refunds or in spending on health care and education.
Watch out: This is not a new tax - the money is already being collected. The real change is the TABOR exemption, which is why opponents call it a tax increase. Also, in some years the full amount will not be directed, if doing so would reduce two tax credits for low- and moderate-income households. And if Proposition NN also passes, Proposition 137 can reduce or eliminate what NN actually keeps.
What this actually does
The state already collects sales tax on sporting goods - bikes, golf and camping gear, hunting and fishing equipment, boats, RVs, campers, and equipment rentals. This measure requires that money to be spent on conservation, wildfire risk mitigation, forest and watershed restoration, and outdoor recreation and access programs, instead of going into the general budget. Prices and tax rates do not change. The catch is that this money would be exempt from the TABOR cap, so in years when the state collects above the limit, taxpayer refunds shrink by that amount.
What your vote means
Existing sales tax revenue from sporting goods is directed to conservation, wildfire mitigation and outdoor recreation programs, and exempted from the state revenue limit.
That revenue stays in the general budget and subject to the TABOR limit, spent on priorities the legislature sets each year or refunded to taxpayers when required.
On every measure, yes means change something and no means leave it alone.
Easiest thing to get wrong
Read this twice
This is not a new tax - the money is already being collected. The real change is the TABOR exemption, which is why opponents call it a tax increase. Also, in some years the full amount will not be directed, if doing so would reduce two tax credits for low- and moderate-income households. And if Proposition NN also passes, Proposition 137 can reduce or eliminate what NN actually keeps.
The case each side makes
Straight from the state's official booklet, shortened. These are arguments as each side makes them — not findings of fact, and not our view.
Why people say yes
- It directs needed money to recreation access, land protection, wildfire mitigation and watershed restoration without raising tax rates or changing the price of anything, funding trusted programs like Great Outdoors Colorado, which has run conservation projects for over 30 years.
- Colorado's outdoors is under strain from more visitors, ongoing drought and worsening wildfires; a user-based model makes the people who buy and rent the gear stakeholders in protecting the lands and water they use.
Why people say no
- It is a tax increase in disguise, because it reduces or eliminates future TABOR refunds - every dollar the state keeps is a dollar less in refunds or in spending on health care and education.
- It locks money into organizations and agencies with specific interests and limited accountability, many of which already have dedicated funding, and ties legislators' hands on balancing budget priorities as conservation needs change.
Where this sits politically
medium confidence Brought by Colorado conservation-policy staff and funded by The Nature Conservancy and Western Resource Advocates. Environmental earmarking plus a TABOR exemption that reduces taxpayer refunds puts it left of center. Tempered because it raises no tax rate, is framed as user-pays, draws some Walton family funding, and has essentially no organized opposition.
How we place the needle and why it is an estimate, not a measurement
We read four things, all of them public and documented:
- Who filed it and what they are affiliated with.
- The recorded party vote, where one exists. On this ballot only Proposition NN has one, because it is the only measure the legislature referred.
- Which side of the political infrastructure is paying for each campaign.
- Which direction the policy moves compared with current law.
Confidence is high when all four point the same way and low when they contradict each other. A low-confidence needle is telling you the measure genuinely does not sort neatly — Amendment 86 is the clearest case, with conservative sponsors and anti-gerrymandering content.
This is our editorial read, not a measurement. A citizen initiative has no party sponsor, so for 13 of these 14 measures there is no official partisan label to report — only inference. Use the needle to get oriented, then read the measure and decide for yourself.
What it costs
Transfers an estimated $175.0 million in 2027-28 and $180.2 million in 2028-29 and after, out of the General Fund. The split is Great Outdoors Colorado 47.5 percent ($83.1 million), forest, wildfire and watershed work 47.5 percent ($83.1 million), and Parks and Wildlife plus economic development 2.5 percent each ($8.7 million combined). Reduces TABOR refunds in years when revenue exceeds the limit.
Who it touches: Every taxpayer who would receive a TABOR refund; conservation, wildfire and outdoor recreation programs; buyers and renters of sporting goods only indirectly, since prices do not change.
Who put it on your ballot
Conservation coalition — not a party measure
People who filed it
Campaigning for it
The two proponents work in Colorado conservation policy: Aaron Citron is policy director for The Nature Conservancy in Colorado, and Brendan Witt works on wildfire resilience at Western Resource Advocates. Both organizations are the largest funders of the supporting committee. Treat the employer link as context, not as a formal endorsement — the Secretary of State lists them personally as the designated representatives.
Who is paying for the ads
Money for it
Money against it
What the money tells you
The most lopsided race on the ballot: about $3.5 million for, against $1,787 — roughly 2,000 to 1. Essentially nobody is advertising against it, even though it reduces TABOR refunds.
Figures are a late-September 2026 snapshot from TRACER campaign-finance filings and will have moved since. A committee marked slate spreads one total across several measures — do not read its number as spending on this measure alone.
Questions people ask
Common questions (6)
The things people want to know before they vote, answered from primary sources where they exist. Every answer was drafted with AI assistance from retrieved documents, then read and approved by a person. Figures carry the year they refer to.
How much money would redirecting the sporting goods sales tax raise each year, and how does Colorado currently fund conservation and wildlife?
Redirecting the sporting goods sales tax would raise an estimated $175 million in the 2027-28 budget year and $180.2 million the following year, supplementing a conservation system currently funded mostly by user fees and the state lottery.
According to the 2026 legislative Blue Book, the measure redirects existing sales taxes on items like bicycles and camping gear to conservation and wildfire programs.
Currently, Colorado Parks and Wildlife does not rely heavily on general tax dollars. For the 2024-25 fiscal year, the agency expects $378 million in revenue from these primary sources: * Licenses, passes, fees, and permits: 58 percent * Federal grants: 13 percent * Great Outdoors Colorado and the state lottery: 13 percent combined
Great Outdoors Colorado, which would receive nearly half of the new measure's funds, is currently funded by the Colorado Lottery. The lottery directs 50 percent of its proceeds to the organization to fund local parks and conservation projects.
Supporters say the measure provides dedicated funding for wildfire mitigation without raising tax rates. Opponents point out that the measure exempts this money from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) revenue limit. In years when the state collects more money than the TABOR cap allows, redirecting these funds reduces taxpayer refunds.
If $175 million is moved out of the general fund, what specific state programs or services currently rely on that money?
The $175 million currently goes into Colorado's General Fund, meaning it is not tied to one specific program but instead helps pay for the state's core services and taxpayer refunds.
According to the Colorado Legislative Council and the state's Joint Budget Committee, the General Fund acts as Colorado's primary operating account. The legislature decides how to divide this money each year. The largest programs it supports include: * K-12 and higher education * Health care and Medicaid * Human services * Corrections and state courts
Because sporting goods sales taxes are currently pooled with other general revenues, no single service relies exclusively on this specific $175 million. However, redirecting it means the legislature will have less general revenue available to divide among these major categories. For context, the National Association of State Budget Officers reports that Colorado's total General Fund spending obligations are $18.64 billion for fiscal year 2027.
Additionally, under current law, this money is subject to the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), a constitutional cap on state revenue. In years when total state revenue exceeds the TABOR limit, the excess is returned to Coloradans. If the measure passes, the $175 million would be exempt from TABOR, meaning taxpayer refunds would shrink by that amount during surplus years.
How much would the average taxpayer's TABOR refund decrease annually if this $175 million exemption is approved?
If approved, Proposition 137 would reduce an individual taxpayer's annual TABOR refund by an estimated $26 to $83, depending on their income tier, in years when the state collects revenue above its limit.
The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) is a constitutional amendment that caps how much revenue Colorado can keep, requiring the state to refund any excess to taxpayers. Proposition 137 asks voters to exempt an estimated $175 million in existing sporting goods sales tax from this cap starting in fiscal year 2027-2028.
Because Colorado calculates refunds using a six-tier system based on adjusted gross income, the exact impact varies. According to 2026 estimates from the Legislative Council Staff, the measure would shrink refunds by: * $26 to $83 for single filers * $52 to $166 for joint filers
Supporters say the measure provides crucial, dedicated funding for wildfire mitigation and land conservation without raising the underlying tax rate or the price of sporting goods.
Opponents note that the measure lacks a trigger limiting it to surplus years. The fiscal note estimates that in years when state revenue falls below the TABOR cap, there are no refunds to reduce. Instead, the $175 million would be pulled directly from the General Fund, the state budget pool that pays for priorities like education and health care.
How much money does the state currently spend annually on wildfire mitigation and conservation from the general fund?
According to a 2026 Legislative Council Staff analysis, Colorado currently spends approximately $16.4 million annually from the general fund on wildfire mitigation and forest management, and about $5 million on watershed restoration.
The state's primary land conservation trust, Great Outdoors Colorado, receives no general fund tax dollars and is funded entirely by the Colorado Lottery. Other outdoor recreation programs receive roughly $800,000 a year.
Measure 137 would redirect an estimated $175 million in existing sporting goods sales taxes in the 2027-2028 fiscal year to these areas: * Great Outdoors Colorado: $83.1 million * Wildfire and watershed programs: $83.1 million * Outdoor recreation and equity: $8.7 million
Supporters say this provides a critical increase in wildfire mitigation funding to protect communities without raising tax rates. They argue existing funding cannot keep up with severe fire risks.
Opponents note that dedicating this existing revenue to conservation puts pressure on the general budget. Because the measure exempts these funds from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) revenue limit, it reduces the money available for other state priorities or shrinks the TABOR refunds returned to taxpayers.
What specific items are legally classified as sporting goods, and what were the total sales of these items in the state last year?
Proposition 137 defines sporting goods across nine categories, but because the state does not track these specific purchases annually, there is no reliable figure for total sales last year. According to the Common Sense Institute, the nine statutory categories are bicycles, golf equipment, hunting and fishing equipment, camping equipment, general sporting goods like tennis and skiing gear, motorcycles and motor bikes, boats and other sports vehicles, recreational vehicles, and exercise and fitness equipment including related rentals.
Because Colorado does not isolate current sales data for these items, the measure calculates the tax revenue using a formula. It takes the ratio of sporting goods sales to total retail sales from the 2022 Economic Census and applies that percentage to the state's current total retail sales.
The non-partisan Legislative Council Staff estimates this formula will redirect $175 million in the 2027-28 budget year. At the state's 2.9 percent sales tax rate, this implies roughly $6 billion in estimated sporting goods sales. Supporters say this formula provides reliable funding for conservation without raising taxes. Opponents argue the formula pulls money from taxpayer refunds or the general budget even if actual sporting goods sales decline.
Have other states dedicated specific sales tax revenues to conservation, and how did it affect their general budget flexibility?
Yes, several states dedicate existing sporting goods sales tax revenue to conservation, which guarantees funding for parks but removes those dollars from the legislature's general budget. According to the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation and state records, three states currently use this model:
- Texas: Voters passed a 2019 amendment dedicating 100 percent of its sporting goods sales tax to parks and historic sites, generating an estimated $168.5 million that year.
- Georgia: Since 2019, the state has directed up to 75 percent of its outdoor recreation equipment sales tax to a conservation trust fund.
- Virginia: The state allocates up to 2 percent of the sales tax on specific outdoor equipment to a game protection fund.
Dedicating these funds directly impacts budget flexibility. In Texas, before the 2019 amendment, state records show lawmakers used the sporting goods tax revenue to cover other budget shortfalls, allocating less than half of the collected funds to parks between 1993 and 2017.
Supporters argue that earmarking provides a reliable funding source for conservation without raising tax rates. Opponents note that locking in existing revenue restricts lawmakers' ability to address other state priorities. In Colorado, the 2026 Blue Book estimates Proposition 137 would similarly divert $175.0 million annually from the general fund, reducing taxpayer refunds under the state revenue limit in surplus years.
Go deeper, if you want
We had two AIs summarize this independently Minor differences
Both models got the same official text, the same instructions, and could not see each other's answer. Here is each one in its own words.
Claude
The state already collects sales tax on sporting goods - bikes, golf and camping gear, hunting and fishing equipment, boats, RVs, campers, and equipment rentals. This measure requires that money to be spent on conservation, wildfire risk mitigation, forest and watershed restoration, and outdoor recreation and access programs, instead of going into the general budget. Prices and tax rates do not change. The catch is that this money would be exempt from the TABOR cap, so in years when the state collects above the limit, taxpayer refunds shrink by that amount.
Flagged: This is not a new tax - the money is already being collected. The real change is the TABOR exemption, which is why opponents call it a tax increase. Also, in some years the full amount will not be directed, if doing so would reduce two tax credits for low- and moderate-income households. And if Proposition NN also passes, Proposition 137 can reduce or eliminate what NN actually keeps.
Gemini
Proposition 137 takes the existing state sales tax collected on sporting goods and dedicates it to outdoor programs, like wildlife conservation and wildfire prevention. It does not increase the cost of sporting goods or raise the tax rate. However, it allows the state to keep this money instead of returning it, which will reduce taxpayer refunds.
Flagged: The measure does not raise the tax rate on sporting goods, but it does reduce the TABOR refunds that all taxpayers receive.
Where they came apart
- Both correctly identified that this is not a new tax and that the real change is the TABOR exemption, which is what makes it a refund reduction.
- Gemini omits where the money actually goes — the 47.5 / 47.5 / 5 split between Great Outdoors Colorado, wildfire-forest-watershed work, and outdoor recreation and equity programs. For a measure whose whole content is an earmark, that is the substance.
- Gemini also omits the carve-out: in some years the full amount will not be directed, if doing so would reduce two state tax credits for low- and moderate-income households. And it does not mention that Proposition 137 can shrink what Proposition NN keeps if both pass. Claude includes both.
The comparison notes were written by Claude — one of the two models grading the contest — which is exactly why both summaries are printed above them in full.
The other model's take on cost and reach second opinion
Cost: The measure transfers an estimated $175 million per year from the general budget to outdoor and conservation programs. In years when state revenue exceeds limits, it will reduce taxpayer refunds by the same amount.
Who it touches: Colorado taxpayers, who will likely see reduced state refunds, and state conservation or outdoor recreation programs that will receive the funding.
Did this explanation help?
Rate the explanation, not the measure. It tells us what to write better.
Discussion
Disagreement is welcome. Personal attacks are not.
No comments yet. Be the first.
Source: 2026 Colorado State Ballot Information Booklet (the "Blue Book"), Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, Research Publication No. 842. Read the original.