April 7, 2026 · Majority Caucus · 24,260 words · 12 speakers · 270 segments
Let's begin. I gaveled us in. We have some members still filing in, so please do so quietly. Get yourself settled. We want to make sure we get through this in a timely way as possible. So we'll begin as soon as we can. Rep Sarota, did you want to get us started?
Yes, thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Representative Brown and I are going to walk you through, hopefully you've all brought your long bill narrative here, an incredible piece of art produced by our incredible JBC staff here to try as clearly as possible to explain what it is in House Bill 1410, the long bill, and the accompanying orbitals. So this budget package includes the long bill and 64 other bills through House Bill 1348 through House Bill 1412. And so the reason that we are running those orbitals is to make the statutory changes necessary in order to bring the budget into balance. So they are very important and crucial to completing a balanced budget here. Just for clarity's sake, the long bill includes appropriations that budget for state agencies to current law. Then some of these bills, I think there are 14 that are moving with the budget package that will ultimately change general fund appropriations for fiscal year 27 that will result in an increase of $200 million net increase in appropriations between fiscal year 26 and fiscal year 27. There are also 16 package bills that are making transfers or diversions from a variety of cash funds to the general fund. And in total, those bills are accounting for $398 million of transfers to the general fund in fiscal year 26 and $102.5 million in fiscal year 27. There are also some bills that are making transfers from the general fund. We will get into this additional bill package as well. And I think also in section four of the long bill narrative, you can also see some of the bills that are included for balancing purposes, but are running outside of the long bill. so um i think with that we can just jump right in we will try to move from department to department um we do have um committees that are to start this afternoon at 1 30 so i think you know we'll try to move through this um as efficiently as possible and get through as many of the orbitals as time allows for so I think in the interest of time we will just jump right in to the department by department overview starting on page 16 with the Department of Agriculture you can see in this department they actually they are a small department and receive a fairly small amount of general fund as compared to the rest of the budget They are taking a nearly 10 reduction in general fund from prior years due to a number of balancing decisions that are included here There is one ongoing increase which we had approved during supplementals for pine beetle biocontrol response. So this is continuing funding that began during the supplemental to address and try to mitigate the spread of the mountain pine beetle. The rest of what you see here are largely reductions, cash fund swaps, and then reductions to the agrivoltaic grants, conservation grants, and equine welfare grant programs in order to achieve some general fund savings. and remember is any questions on the agriculture department okay please proceed all right let's move on to everyone's favorite department corrections um this is on page 19 so um this department um is is seeing a significant general fund increase um from one fiscal year to the next And you can see on page 19 in the table, it walks through in order of amount, essentially. Our greatest increase in expenditures is actually due to medical caseload. And we have continued to see that increase in the cost of medical care being provided outside of corrections, increased costs in prescription drugs that are really driving these increases. And it goes on down. So prison caseload is continuing to increase. The original budget submitted was based on an earlier caseload projection. The projections that came in December demonstrated that caseload is projected to increase at actually a much faster rate. So this budget includes an increase in the number of beds within the Department of Corrections at a number of different facilities. It also increases an increase in the private prison per diem rate that will be phased in over two fiscal years. we also added in an addition an addition to the correctional officer shift relief factor we have created a pilot program to try and address the significant increased costs that we are seeing in overtime pay, which is driving what we have had to make up for in shortfalls in unfunded para-liability. And there has been a lot of angst within the staff, within corrections, due to some of the staffing shortages that they are seeing. So this pilot project is an effort to to address the fact that in a number of our facilities we are having social workers and other folks who are not correctional officers having to perform correctional officer duties and this is an attempt to try and address that. We are increasing funding for payments to local jails due to an increased projection of folks having to stay in local jails while awaiting an open bed within corrections There are a number of other changes, increases to spending on food. There are a few offsets in this budget, including an offset of $3.7 million for transgender health care due to just truing up a budget for alignment with recent and expected expenditures. I think maybe it's just easier to take questions if you have them.
Great.
We'll start with Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Thank you, JBC members, for your hard work. We've had some of these conversations before, so I will acknowledge that, but I think it's important to get this part of the conversation on the record in light of what we heard in the Smart Act hearings in the Judiciary Committee. So I want to refer to some things we heard in the Smart Act hearings in the Judiciary Committee. Colorado's Division of Criminal Justice 2025 mid-year crime trend shows decreases across the board, 13.3% across the board, 30% decline in homicides, robberies down, 25% assaults down, 12% property crime down, 17% across the state too. So fewer crimes are being committed. We also heard about people who are parole eligible who could be released who have not been released. So this budget line item funds 941 new prison beds based on projected population growth. How does that projected population growth sync with the decrease in crime and the number of people who are parole eligible who have not been released?
Representative Sirota.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair, and thank you for the great question, Representative Mabry. I think, and for the caucus's awareness, we initially denied funding for the bed increase because we have been having these same conversations year after year after year within the General Assembly about the increased expenditures needed within the Department of corrections and now we are seeing that these increases, these increased requests are coming at a time when, to your point, crime is down, but why do we still have so many folks within corrections and why are we spending so much if we know that there are a number of people within DOC who are actually safe and releasable and have met their parole eligibility date? And I think so we initially denied the increased bed request because we know that there are members of the General Assembly working on various other bills that are running outside their policy changes running outside of the long bill. but that should get to addressing some of these concerns when it comes to prison population management tools and increasing access to earn time to address offenders sentences And we did not approve the bed increase until we felt confident that there was agreement between the second floor bill sponsors and the first floor on these efforts to reduce the DOC population in places where it is safe and we are able to do so. I will say that what hasn't happened to this point, and I would say our analyst has, we have the same analyst for corrections and for ComCorps within the Department of Public Safety. And one thing that has not been addressed and really should be addressed by the General Assembly, not the JBC. It is, I think, the job of the General Assembly to address these particular policy concerns as it relates to community corrections boards and the capacity that they have and what does the state want to do in order to the system is is not setting us up for success in terms of reducing the prison population and so if the general assembly wants to see more people heading to community corrections i think there need to be significant discussions and policy changes made to address this issue of local control that we the state do not have over these community corrections boards and the offenders that they are willing to take in their particular jurisdictions. That is a challenge. That is not something we are fixing in this budget, but I, along with Mr. Brackey, would encourage members of the General Assembly to take this up. If we want to see more people in community corrections instead of DOC, some changes will have to be made. But I don't think that it is a decision that the JBC has to grapple with on the budget side, but it is a policy choice that the broader General Assembly should be grappling with.
Brett Mabry, follow-up?
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Thank you for that, Representative Sirota. So my follow-up has to do with what's happening moving forward, right? So we have those projections. We are aware that there's, we have the crime projections. We are aware that there's legislation on prison population management that might address the parole issue. Yet all of us, you guys got presented it. We read it in the paper. The governor was asking for a new prison. And moving forward, as you mentioned, we have this conversation every single year about more beds, more money for prisons. When today we're going to be talking about a lot of tough cuts, what conversations have been had about what this looks like next year or the year after? Do you all believe we're on a trend to continue that year after year? we need more money for beds, we need more money for prisons, even though the prison population management trend and the crime trend would suggest eventually otherwise? Or are we planning on next year being back here having the same sort of conversation? Representative Brown? I'm sorry.
Rep Sirota. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. I think I'll let my colleague share his perspective too,
But yes. It does appear we would be back here for the same conversation again next year, probably. We base our budgeting off of projections. That's the best we can do. They're not always right. And, in fact, we were presented with a request to engage in the purchase of a new facility to purchase a new prison. And that was not. And in fact, what was stated is this is probably the first request of that. Likely the state based on projections would need two new prisons, not just one. And I think, you know, the budget committee. All of us balked at that request. I think the members of the General Assembly also were shocked to learn of this request and the timing of the request. Instead, what you will see in the budget is we have put a new line item within DOC and appropriated $1 to it. And this is for the administration to engage in negotiations to secure additional private bed space if that is actually required. But they will have to bring us a request during an interim supplemental to demonstrate that that is actually necessary. And so those funds aren't appropriated for that purpose until that request and presentation is made. But to your point, yes, it does appear. I think that the two bills that are being contemplated that I expect will start in the Senate should do some work to address the number of individuals who would remain in DFC over the coming years by the hundreds, which will be helpful. But it wouldn't address the entire projection that we are anticipated to face. I would also remind members that any time you are considering a bill and they come up every year, any time you are considering a bill that is extending sentencing or creating new crimes, we will have to fund more beds within DOC. So, you know, a lot of this has been driven by the actions of the General Assembly and then as well by a ballot measure that was put forward to extend the length of sentences that offenders will ultimately have to serve. And that, too, will continue to create pressures on the budget.
Representative Espinoza.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. My question is to explain the reduction in the federal funding that's in the bill, if you would. It seems substantial. I'm just wondering what's driving that in particular. Do you remember?
Representative Brown.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair, and thank you, Rep. Espinosa, for that question. Do you want to point me at the exact line that you're looking at or section here?
I saw it initially on page 19, just in the federal funds. There's a reduction of $3 million. And then on page 21 that shows over as for the federal fund line when you look at the column Not the line, but the columns for federal funds. Technical adjustments.
I may have to get back to you on that. We are, I don't remember there being a reduction, a specific reduction in federal funding. it might have something to do with IT projects or something along those lines, but maybe Rep Sarota remembers.
Rep Sarota?
All I can point to is the summary, which is that these have to do with technical adjustments to remove outdated federal and reappropriated funds. So they are outdated. They are probably just former funds that are no longer accurate and reflected. Maybe they haven't been for some time, and this is just truing up a number in the budget.
Thank you.
Representative Bacon, AML Bacon.
Thank you. I have a few questions. I'd also like to thank my colleague also from Denver in regards to, actually both of my colleagues from Denver, in regards to asking the questions and also your responses in regards to why we have the numbers that we have in DOC. I'd like to turn to the supplemental request and something in the footnote regarding a footnote regarding corrections. If you could share a little bit about what will or won't or what does or doesn't trigger the supplemental request per the June forecast. And then also I'm curious if you do have any insights on the readiness of our facilities or proposed facilities, including where for now. It's readiness to house people since it hasn't been used in quite some time. And so again, the first question is around the potential supplemental requests and what will or won't trigger that. And the second question is if you have any insights on the readiness of some of the facilities that we're looking at since they haven't been used in some time.
Rep. Sirota.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Thank you, Assistant Majority Leader Bacon, for the question. I think what would trigger the supplemental request is already that we are essentially saying we understand that the projections are demonstrating that by the end of the fiscal year, we are anticipated to need hundreds more beds within DOC. And yes, the fact of the matter is the additional available beds that might exist in the state of Colorado, I think, are in facilities that would require some additional work to bring those beds back online. So that supplemental request would entail probably a payment rate for those beds that is higher than the typical rate because they're going to have to build in some of that additional work to be done to the actual facility to be able to house people there. And it would probably also entail a contract that would span potentially about five years, because that is the agreement of some minimum number of offenders in a new facility AML Bacon Thank you And do you have a sense of you know I can appreciate will be higher might need it for
a minimum of X amount of years, but do we have a sense of a budget or a cost to bring these buildings online? You know, I mentioned where for no because it hasn't been used in, what, 15, 20 years. And so I'm wondering if you have even a sense of those costs for us to do that. And then also I just want to repeat what I heard. I think I heard you say by the end of the fiscal year we anticipate 100 more beds. Was that correct as well?
Reps.
Rota. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. I'm sorry, Majority Leader Bacon. and I missed your very last question. There isn't a specific dollar amount other than the footnote that you referenced does include, because we include it in a separate footnote, and the reason we had to make a new line is because there's a rate set in the footnote for those private beds, and the new one, I'm sorry, I cannot find it, but I want to say it's something like $114 or $115 a day. But I will get you the exact number as soon as I'm able.
Assistant Majority Leader Bacon.
For what it's worth, I see state payments to other state private prisons at a rate of $115.74 a day, $115. Is that okay? I have one additional question. We have around 60 people approved for a special needs parole. And I believe what we've heard from corrections is they haven't been, you know, paroled through the special needs process because they have nowhere to go. And I'm wondering if we have any assessments. Can we determine how much it is costing us, the state, through and through corrections for their health care and the cost of their incarceration? And do we have a sense of what the cost then would be if they were not behind our walls?
Rep. Serrota.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. assistant majority leader bacon i don't know that we have ever gotten a number but what we do know is that uh health care for example is uh is very expensive within the department of corrections and also did you know um you are considered geriatric within the department of corrections at age 50 or higher um so it i mean it's expensive the the costs are great and certainly if um if those individuals were eligible to leave DOC and could become Medicaid eligible, that would likely be a cost saving to the state if we were able to find placement for them.
Sorry, and just the last question, and I'm not sure if you said this, do you know how much of the prison population is over the age of 50? Okay.
no but i think we have a table to to show you that somewhere we can find okay thank you uh
representative garcia thank you madam caucus chair um i curious if maybe you can help us understand the way that the conversation went
and maybe the decision-making between investing in beds versus investing in the community support system necessary to get those who should be out on parole out on parole.
Representative Brown.
Thank you very much, Madam Caucus Chair, And Representative Garcia, I really appreciate that question. I mean, I think fundamentally we should be moving more towards, you know, making sure that people who can safely be in the community can be in the community. Our analyst often describes the entire Department of Corrections as a security agency that does a little bit of rehabilitation. And I think that's really true. He's also indicated that when you look at other correctional systems, even in other countries, ones that are much more focused on rehabilitation, they are much more expensive on a per-person basis. So while that is the goal and that is the direction that we should be moving, it is very challenging from a fiscal perspective. Now, that said, every dollar that we spend on a prison is $2 or $10 that we can't spend on health care. And it is certainly a dollar that we can't spend on education. So those are sort of our, those have been some of the things that we've had to grapple with. And part of the reason why we didn't buy, we didn't support at this time buying a new prison was because we want to make sure that we are talking about a comprehensive solution. And while there may be increases in the short term, we're hopeful that the bills that are in the process right now will make sure that the right people are staying behind bars and the right people who can be released into the community are being released into the community.
Rep. Garcia.
A follow-up on that, I guess what's hard for me to reconcile in this decision for the continuation of adding more and more beds versus the investment in getting people out, I see that you also have the correctional officer shift relief factor pilot because there's just already not enough staff. Correct. And so if we are saying that as a state, it's just cheaper to keep people caged without proper staffing, without any hope of saying, hey, here are the classes you should be able to take, and here's the support and navigation you should be able to have to access a job, which then generates economic activity in our communities or housing or medical care. It seems like we are within when we look at the morality of a budget, it seems like we are saying it is better for us as a state to keep people caged than to look at the 500 or I don't even know how many now that could be out if we only said, no, let's reprioritize our funding. even if it costs more, so that way we can actually then have a system that doesn't bloat year after year after year.
Rep. Brown.
Thank you. I certainly appreciate what you're saying, Representative Garcia, and I don't disagree. I will just say that it is we have been trying to what we, I think what Chair Sirota indicated, is that the JBC, in some ways, in many cases, including in corrections, we are faced with a caseload projection that then we are sort of forced to fund. And many of the underlying factors that are driving that caseload increase are things that are more or less out of the JBC's control. Some of the things that were mentioned, obviously, are initiatives that the voters have passed. Others have been bills that the legislature have passed on fentanyl and other things. And that leads to more and more people incarcerated. I think it's worth noting, too, that our analyst has also indicated that lengthening prison sentences does not deter crime. enforcement of policies does but just because you've you take a sentence from three years to five years it does not occur crime but what it does do is continue to balloon our our prison population and those are the kinds of policy choices that we as a legislature have made in the past and that continues to impact even as crime goes down that continues to impact our prison case loan So I agree with you that investments in making sure, and I will also just add another point, which is there are many people in prison who are not able to be released because we are not providing them with the treatment that they need in order to meet the qualifications for parole and release. And if we are not investing in those things, then that is a serious problem.
One more follow-up, Rep Garcia, and then we're moving to Rep Carter.
Thank you. I guess that's the crux of my line of questioning, Representative Brown. And when we talk about caseload and projection of increased caseload, I guess I'm curious, is that the increase in caseload projection, is that inclusive of the many people who are incarcerated who are actually, like, parole eligible? or is it not even inclusive of that group or is the assumption that these people we just know they're just going to be stuck in prison because we are choosing to just expand who's in prison versus doing exactly what you said investing in what is necessary to get these people out
rep sorority thank you thank you madam caucus chair thank you representative garcia i don't think that I can speak to the precise methodology that DCJ uses for their projections, but we can certainly find out. And also, thank you to Mr. Brackey, who is currently staffing a different caucus right now, but already responded to let us know that over one-fifth of the offenders within DOC are considered geriatric. About 4,000 inmates are over the age of 50.
Representative Carter.
Thank you, Madam Cox Chair. I want to thank Amel Bacon. Specifically, the question she asked was on point with one of the questions that I wanted some clarification for. I understand the original admonition that you gave to the members of the caucus regarding our continual finding new and different ways to put people in jail and also finding new and inventive ways of not letting them out But you were talking specifically about the geriatric. Has there been a conversation specifically about the fact that a 50-year-old prisoner who has medical care, how that is exponentially more costly on the inside than it is on the outside. And the policies that we are perpetuating are going to continue to make that geriatric population increase. I understand the consternation that we have towards the first floor, But when do we or you as the JBC have that conversation with us that the population is not just the first floor or DOC, but it's also our ability to find new and inventive ways to put people in custody and to keep them there, knowing that they will become more and more expensive.
Rep. Serrota.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Thank you, Representative Carter. yes we have had these conversations um i think that our jbc analyst um has written really um impressive documents this year describing the current situation uh where we've been and where we seem to be headed and um so yes we've had these conversations i think the issue is we end up having a responsibility to budget to current law and current projections. And while I share your intense frustration at the increased costs that are coming in DOC, our job on the budget committee is to have to respond and deal with actual cost projections. And I would very much encourage members of the General Assembly, if you don't like this, we have to make policy changes to change that. DOC has to house the people that are sent there. And yes, there are issues with exiting people who have reached an eligibility date, who are safe to be released. And I think that we are trying. I don't think that we have solved all the problems there, but we are trying to make some headway on that front. But between the Department of Corrections and Community Corrections, there is a lot of policy work that I think for a number of years now, the question has been just laid at the feet of the JBC.
What are you going to do about it?
And I think my response is, I'm here to partner with you to do something about it, but these are policy changes that should be considered by the General Assembly, and I welcome them and the discussion to try and get to a point where we are spending a lot, lot less on incarcerating Coloradans.
Representative English.
Thank you. Thank you. So I have a couple questions. Everyone knows how I feel about funding beds and opposed to education because we pay more per person that's incarcerated than we do for students. So one of my questions is what upstream investments education youth programs mental health services could reduce the need for this level of correction spending That's my first question.
Representative Brown.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair, and thank you, Rep. English, for your question. I think obviously there are lots of upstream programs that could reduce the need for prison beds. I don't disagree with you that we should be investing more in education. We should be investing more in health care. Obviously, we are challenged this year because of our budget. We have preserved core funding in education. We'll get to that soon. But, you know, to me, making sure that folks have economic opportunities, folks have educational opportunities, is it goes a long ways towards making sure that we do not need investments and corrections to the level that we currently have.
Rep. English.
And I know that we can all agree that it's very problematic when we are paying more per prisoner than we are per student. And I'm going to keep saying it until it changes because it is our job to make policy changes. But, you know, that's a whole other conversation. But what is the long term cost comparison between incarcerating and individual versus investing in early education, intervention and workforce pathways?
Rep. Sarota.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair, and thank you, Representative English. I absolutely agree that investments in early childhood education and investing in our kids and families when they are young does pay dividends down the road. And that is a significantly important place for the state to make investments. And I believe we have increased those investments during my time in the legislature, at least. But I absolutely agree with you that those pay significant benefits both to society and to the actual kids and families that we are supporting through those programs.
Last question. Okay, one last question, Rep. English, and then we're moving back to Espinoza.
Can we justify expanding corrections funding when schools are still facing resource gaps, staffing shortages, and unmet student needs? Because it comes to the point either we're funding outcomes or maintaining systems. So what's the justification in funding corrections opposed to education?
Rep. Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep. English, for your questions. Nobody wants to fund prison beds. People keep being sentenced into the prisons, and it is our responsibility as a state to take care of those folks. The caseload projections are what they are, and they are based on the policies that this body, that the legislature, that the voters have implemented. if I could fund no prisons I would certainly do that but we can't right we continue to have we do even even as crime goes down we continue to have people commit crimes murders etc and get sentenced to our prisons so the reality is that the caseload projections are what they are and to some degree we have to fund them And if the General Assembly is serious about changing that dynamic then we need to pass laws, laws that I will support, that will change, you know, when people get out, that will make sure that they get the treatment that they need, that we will turn our correction system not into just a security system with a rehabilitation problem, but a real system that is reforming and rehabilitating and getting folks out into the community safely.
Okay, we're going to move to Rep. Espinosa and then Rep. Ricks.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I had one other question, and I couldn't find it in any of the long bills, so I'm trying to understand this, because I do know the other side of failing to fund these beds means that we run into problems with PREA and other legal obligations we have to humanely house these individuals who are in our custody and care as state inmates. So my question is, what is the fiscal and where is the fiscal impact of lawsuits and litigation that have been made against the state for failing to meet those standards? Where is it located in the long bill? And then the question, I just don't know where that's located, how we would find that, and whether that is part of what you're looking at in terms of making these assessments from the budget standpoint of needing to fund beds versus having to pay that cost in fines and fees to lawyers as opposed to even making substantial changes in the system.
Rep. Sarota.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. That is not located in the long bill. If there have been legal settlements made, that would have been reflected elsewhere and at the time that they were made. What is reflected in the long bill is the cost to county jails. We have been subject to lawsuits around the number of inmates that we have been housing in county jails. We've tried to increase the per diem rate for those county jails, which is still not actually meeting county costs. But so they tell us. But the challenge that we have is if we don't fund the additional beds within DOC, we will pay more for that increased county jail backlog, which has been fairly substantial of late, which was the cause for the increased beds in the supplemental and now. And if we allow that county backlog in our county jails to continue to grow, we feel it's quite likely we will, you know, find ourselves in another lawsuit by other counties who are protesting our use of their beds. And so, you know, the other challenge that you won't see here, but yes, I think there is a, we have a significant challenge within the Department of Corrections with the morale of the individuals who work in these facilities, the challenges to staffing, the challenges to, you know, that we are trying to address with this shift relief factor pilot, where we've got social workers and other individuals who are not correctional officers doing their jobs. And so we are trying to address that situation properly But, you know, if we don't increase the number of beds, there is a concern that they will then have to move to double bunking and the utilization of sled beds. This comes up every time. And the sort of unsafe conditions that those kinds of changes would bring to an already very stressed population of staff and offenders.
Representative Ricks.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. You know, listening to all of this conversation around the Department of Corrections, I'm wondering how are we tracking whether this investment actually reduces recidivism or improves rehabilitation?
Rep Sirota.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. I would suggest it doesn't. If we are not making those investments in, you know, what has been brought up about various workforce programs and training programs and things that if we are not doing those things, I think what has been said is that our correction system is very good at keeping people incapacitated. The rest of it, not so much. And it is an important point to make, and that is the current state of the way we are doing this work.
Thank you.
Webb Joseph?
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair, and thank you to our JBC members for their presentation today. They've been hard at work over the last couple of days, and I've seen their hard work as a member of the Appropriations Committee. And this question is based on conversation with my constituency and also based on what we've heard from our own governor. The governor has raised concern about increasing jail backlogs due to limited DOC capacity. How is the JBC accounting for those pressures in its current corrections budget? So it's whether the governor's comments has impacted how this particular long bail conversations around corrections.
Thank you.
Rep. Serrata. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chairs. I'm not sure I would say the governor's comments have influenced the expenditures presented here within the Department of Corrections, but certainly we have tried to take into account all of the various pressures on DOC capacity. the county jails are one sort of release valve in terms of DOC capacity that we have utilized, but the considerable jail backlog that we have seen over the last year or so is the reason you are also seeing an increase in the number of beds requested within DOC as well as an increase in the number of private beds that we would allow the department to contract for because that jail backlog can only grow so much before I think the lid blows on that as well
Rep. Joseph, follow-up.
Thank you. This is my last question. Thank you, Chair Sirota, for your comments. What impact do current budget decisions have on timeline for reducing the backlog, county jail backlog that you just mentioned, absent additional DOC capacity, What is the plan to prevent further growth in the jail backlog? I know every time we've had this conversation, you've mentioned this is a policy conversation, but the budget continuously increase every year. So ultimately, there has to be some type of plans being taken into account as we're funding corrections.
Thank you.
Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Cocker Chair and Representative Joseph. I really appreciate the question. I will say that it does feel a little bit like deja vu all over again because we have had a similar situation last year. The jail backlog was increasing. We approved additional beds, and that helped for a time. We have presented data that demonstrated that we significantly decreased the jail backlog last year, but that has continued to climb. So, you know, the legislature in the supplemental package approved additional beds. In this package, we are asking for the JVC includes funding for additional beds. So that will hopefully help with the jail backlog to some degree. But, you know, ultimately we have to understand, again, I would say that the jail backlog is a symptom of the policies that the legislature has put in place. that really threaten the capacity that we have at DOC and in our prisons. And the reason that the jail backlog exists in the first place is that we don't have enough space necessarily to move them into our prisons. So for what it's worth, as we look for a comprehensive solution to our prison population problem, the jail backlog will hopefully benefit from that as well.
Representative Clifford.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. My first question is, and having listened to many of the JBC hearings with a lot of the dialogue in this area, Did JBC have the experience that the department or the administration is working toward reducing any of these prison backlogs internally in their own policy?
Rep Sirota.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. I think what we have heard from corrections is that they are implementing the budget that they are given with the policies that are in statute to manage this situation. They are reevaluating some various methods of assessment and some of the way they do things, yes. And I also do believe that the first floor has engaged in good faith with our colleagues about some of these prison population management tools that would require statutory change Rep Clifford
I certainly have not had that experience. Every time that I have engaged with the administration on something that might reduce prison populations, I have gotten quite the opposite. So I was fascinated to see what we're doing to make sure that people that are parole eligible are getting out of prison on time. And if you heard anything about anything that is statutory today that would allow some of those things to move more efficiently, what your sense of that was in these hearings?
Brett Brown.
Thank you. Thank you, Rev. Clifford, for the question. I would say that there is probably nothing in this long bill package that addresses that particular concern. But we know that there are bills outside of the long bill package that are trying to deal with, as Chair Sirota mentioned, the prison population kind of growth as well as and some other aspects, earn time and whatnot. I do think that there has been a really renewed emphasis on this and that some of the actions and the conversations that started at the JBC during the supplemental process have kick-started a lot of those conversations. I look forward to the administration continuing to engage in good faith, as well as the advocates and others engaging in good faith to come up with a comprehensive solution to our prison population problem.
Representative Clifford.
Thank you. I'm very much looking forward to a comprehensive solution. I have my doubts about whether it will happen during this administration. I'm really interested in whether now you think that we, given the current budget proposal, could kick this can down the road until we could look at this newly in January and then start to reevaluate some of the programs that we have and how that might work. Do you think that we will make it that long with our current trajectory? Do you think that the jails can stand it? Do you think we can afford it just with what we currently have proposed?
Rep. Sarota.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Representative Clifford, if you are asking if we think that the DOC could manage with 26-level appropriations before offering them any increases in beds or medical caseload adjustments or the like, the answer is no. Otherwise, we wouldn't have appropriated it. And I just respectfully, I might suggest that we move on because we are only on the second department, and we also have, if you want to talk about any of the orbitals, a limited amount of time to do that, and there are significant budget adjustments in several other departments.
I think that sounds great.
Rep Sorority, will you move us on to early childhood?
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Within the Department of Early Childhood, you can see the change from prior year general fund expenditures is nearly a million dollars less in fiscal year 27 as compared to fiscal year 26. This relates to, and you can actually see that there is an increase in general fund appropriations for the universal preschool program due to the inflationary statutorily required inflationary increase but I would note there is an orbital bill that actually is reducing by 10 million dollars fund appropriation to the Department of Early Childhood for preschool services being refinanced with other EE cash fund dollars. There is a reduction in projected expenditures needed for early intervention services. This is not related to any cut in services, but rather a new projection in lower cost utilization. We made several reductions to different lines in within early childhood programming. They are not reductions that anyone particularly wanted to make, but across departments, we ended up having to make a number of painful balancing decisions. So there's a reduction of $4.7 million of federal funds from the CCDF for quality investments. within our child care programming that were utilized to support workforce and training retention. But that CCDF funding has been flat. The federal government doesn't increase it. And so we are continually pressed to do more with the same amount of funding. And so that reduction is an attempt to try and bring that budget better in line with the funding that we do get from the federal government. We are actually saving money by bringing some child care provider licensing and contract folks in-house as opposed to currently having contract workers do some of the licensing work, which has actually also been creating a lot of consternation with providers. And so in addition to saving us over half a million dollars of general fund, it will also improve quality, we believe, for the providers out there. There is a reduction of $500,000 of general fund for a pilot program that was providing child care services and substance use disorder treatment through a mobile service. there's a reduction to family resource centers within this budget 50 reduction to the healthy steps program there is a savings of some funds through local lead budget consolidation where we are consolidating early childhood councils and local coordinating organizations there's a reduction of general fund due to an elimination of an OED workforce contract, a 10% reduction to early childhood mental health services, and a couple of other small cuts. Happy to take questions.
Members, questions on early childhood? Okay, I don't see any. I think we can move on to education. Okay, thank you, Madam Caucus Chair.
so you will see within this budget this is what the long bill will provide for funding for our our Department of Education which includes the state share of of total program and you can see we are not increasing the general fund obligation for the state share through the long bill. Any increases required to fund total program will come through the School Finance Act and come from the state ed fund. There are a number of changes embedded in the long bill though related to the healthy school meals for all program as well as for your awareness there are a couple of bills that will also address the healthy school meals for all program and related transfers we you can see also reflected here a refinancing of the state public school fund revenue adjustment. Essentially, I think it maybe had been reported that we were decreasing funding for BEST and the charter school facilities grant program. And we are not making cuts to the BEST funding. Instead, we are refinancing dollars. And that's what that $70 million cut to general fund and $70 million increase to cash funds represents. We also, so I would say overall, while we made, we worked very hard not to have to bring back a budget stabilization factor within K-12 education. We did make a number of reductions to various grant programs within the Department of Education. The JBC has worked over the last two years to try
and streamline the abundance of grant programs that have cropped up within the Department of Education over the years that I think CDE found were not really being equitably distributed across districts across the state. And so we have engaged in some consolidation of those grant programs through a workforce bill that was passed last year. I believe it was Senate Bill 315. But this budget also represents some reductions to programs such as the Behavioral Healthcare Professional Matching Grant Program to the School Bullying Prevention Grant to the School Counselor Corps Grant to the Adult Literacy and Grant Program and a few other things in here that we are not cutting completely, but we are making reductions to those grant programs. That is essentially what you will see within the Department of Education budget. Questions? Assistant Majority Leader Bacon.
Thank you. I think it's more of a question-comment. just want to confirm that total program this year is $9.9 billion, almost $10 million. Just want to confirm I'm reading the chart correctly on page 31. And I think the comment, too, is thank you for your work in protecting K-12 funding. I know it's been a difficult year, but I just want to be sure I can understand the chart in regards to total program on page 31 Rep Sarota Thank you Madam Caucus Chair Assistant Majority Leader Bacon that chart on page 31 shows that the adjusted appropriation for fiscal year 26 is million and that the long bill to reflect current law would appropriate $10.18 billion. Sorry, we're in billions. for total program. And you can see the fund splits there in terms of the general fund, which as I mentioned is remaining flat, but then a reflection of an increase in state ed funds and a change in cash funds from the state public school fund as well.
AML Picken.
Thank you. And if you have any, I guess, maybe external chart to understand the balances around the state education fund. And I'm curious if you've done any projections about, you know, being able to use the fund to fully fund our school finance formula. I would love to see that or understand where you are with your projections.
Rep. Sarota. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Excellent question. assistant majority leader bacon and we do have those tables and um ms yule presented them to us during figure setting when we were looking at uh the formula and the projected balances of the state ed fund and it is uh it is concerning we have um a couple years coming where we are um very anxious about the projections and our ability to keep a floor in that state ed fund of $100 million. So I think I would just stress again that when you see some of the reductions that we are proposing and it's reductions from the state ed fund for, or sorry, it's reductions to programs that are currently funded out of the state education program with some of these orbital bills that people are saying, please don't cut this, please, please fund this. Please know that every time we are taking dollars out of the state ed fund for these additional kinds of grant programs and things, those are fewer dollars that are available for core funding for our state share of funding the formula, which is our core services to our students and educators.
Any other questions on education? Okay, looks good. I think we can move forward. Okay, Madam Cocker's chair, thank you very much. I will move on to the governor. We're making a couple of different changes in the office of the governor this year. One is an OIT spending authority. We are increasing spending authority in reappropriated funds by $10.8 million from the IT revolving fund. fund. This is a reduction, this increase is coupled with a reduction in departmental payments to OIT to save the general fund and drawing down on the IT revolving funds balance. We are also increasing in the office in particular in the office of the lieutenant governor we are increasing or giving spending authority for the Youth Mental Health Corps which is an AmeriCorps program. Specifically, we are increasing funding from the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund of $505,330 and reallocating $244,670 in existing marijuana tax cash fund. There's been a decrease in funding to this office, and maintaining this program is very important to a lot of folks. We are realigning the operating of OIT. We are decreasing spending in information security in OIT. It will have no operational impact, but it will align information security appropriations with anticipated expenditures. We are also implementing some operating efficiencies. The bill lowers appropriations due to streamlined service delivery through a consolidation of offices in OIT, and that will decrease reappropriated funds by $2.6 million and 17 FTE. OEDIT is taking a 2.5% general fund reduction across the board. That's a decrease of 528,964 general fund. The governor's office proper is taking an additional, also a 2.5% reduction to their general fund, as well as the energy offices as well. Questions about the governor's office? Okay. I don't see any, so I think we can move on to HICPF. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we've had a lot of conversations about HICPF. Many of the changes that you will see in here reflect actions that the General Assembly took during the supplemental process. But I will say as an overview, medical services premiums, which pays for physical health and most long-term services and supports, the net impact will be an increase of $1.5 billion in total funds, or 10.7%, including $350 million in general fund, or 8.8%. Behavioral health, there's an adjustment to behavioral health services based on the February forecast, and that will increase by 232.3 million total funds, 15%, which includes 45.1 million general fund, which is a 12.9% increase. The Office of Community Living, which funds services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, that will have a net increase of $61 million in total funds and $32.3 million in general funds. And then the Child Health Plan Plus or CHIP or CHP Plus, based on the February caseload, will increase by 17.5% in total funds, including a $9.4 million in general fund, which is a 21.4% increase. So despite our even with our cuts and all of the terrible challenges that we have faced in the Medicaid budget there is still significant growth in these programs At a high level we are increasing Maybe one bright spot here is the bill includes funding to expand Medicaid benefits to cover three-dimensional mammography. This is based on really best practice in medicine that now uses 3D mammography, and that will increase general fund by $128,000 roughly. The bill includes for intellectual and developmental disability youth transitions. The bill reduces funding to end the automatic enrollment to the adult comprehensive or DD waiver for folks who are aging out of the children's, the CES or the CHIRP waivers. This will result in year one savings of about $7.7 million in general fund and about $21.9 million in general fund in the following year. the cost the the bill includes changes to implement a policy that requires members on the DD waiver to contribute financially for their residential services this is the practice in other waivers the DD waiver was the one waiver that had that covered people who through res for residential care, a residential level of care that did not include this particular cost-sharing provision. And so we are including that in this particular bill. That will reduce general fund expenditures by a projected $6.3 million next year and $13.3 million in general fund the following year. We are instituting an age limit on community connector benefits for minors. This limits access to ages to six years and older. This reduces general fund by $3.7 million next year. We are instituting an adult dental annual cap. The bill adjusts funding for a $3,000 annual cap for adult dental services. That will reduce general fund by $1.4 million next year. we are changing the way that we are handling the DD waiver wait list instead of enrolling one person for every person that disenrolls we will now enroll one person for every two people that disenroll and that results in a general fund savings of 3.3 million in general fund next year and 9.4 million in general fund the following We had a lot of conversations at the JBC about the caregiver soft cap. We have, after many, many conversations, we have created a glide path to a 56-hour per week cap that will fully implement by July 1, 2027. That will reduce general fund by about $300,000 in the current year and about $1.4 million in the next year. We are – I would say that overall, we have taken a number of – we've taken provider rates, implemented a couple of cuts in provider rates. Overall, provider rates are taking a 2% reduction. That results overall in a $84.2 million decrease in general fund. It's worth noting that we have exempted certain NICU codes from the 2% reduction as well as a requirement that we bring codes to a maximum of 85% of the Medicare rate. We have also exempted pediatric behavioral therapy from the 2% cut. The one rate increase that we are recommending is for IV nutrition, where we are truing up the rate to align with the estimated actual costs of administering it. That's about an increase of about $100,000 in general fund next year. We have reduced the provider rates on non-wheelchair transport, non-emergency medical transportation. That will result in the $15 million general fund savings next year. We are reducing funding for the modifications to private duty nursing rates and their structure in the home health rate structure to develop and implement a new rate negotiation strategy for the DD waiver as well as the CHIRP waiver. The bill will implement a blended per diem rate and an acute care period for private duty nursing services. services. And all of these details are in your notes, but this will result in about $13.7 million in general fund savings next year. The administration at HICPF will see some changes, in particular because of federal H.R. 1. In order to comply with federal H.R. 1 in the current year, we will be using $58,000 in general fund, and in the following year we will need to spend almost a million dollars with about $45.8 million total funds. This is so that we can do the work requirements, we can implement the work requirements, the six-month eligibility redeterminations, and some of the other provisions that are required by the new federal law. we have included funding for a one time pediatric behavioral therapy audit and that information is included in your packet as well we are also per federal regulations including funding to bring us up to federal standards for our provider directory The recent federal guidance increased the minimum requirements around mobile usability, quarterly updates, cultural and linguistic details, interoperability, and user-friendly searches. And so there's about a half a million dollars of general fund in there for next year to comply with federal law. We are decreasing funding because of the implementation of the certified community behavioral health clinics. So in total, this will bring in more funds, but fortunately it will reduce our general fund obligations And this makes sure that we can receive additional federal funds by meeting certain federal requirements around community behavioral health care We are including funding, we are reducing funding for DOJ housing vouchers resulting from the transition of individuals from institutional care settings. The bill includes funding for housing vouchers and staffing resources at the Department of Local Affairs. We are moving to a single assessment tool to be used by case management agencies in developing an individual's person-centered support plan. This will help to reduce our overall expenditures and next year will reduce general fund expenditures by $6.2 million. We are not going to enroll children into the PRIME program in Rocky Mountain health plans, so they will not be included in the managed care contract, and this will save the state about $1.7 million. And then we are making some other changes to the all-player claims database, as well as making some adjustments to align with OSPB's tobacco forecast. And then there are a number of supplemental actions that we took, which resulted in a grand total of $129 million in general fund. those prior actions are listed in your narrative as well as the prior actions from the years prior to this one. I will pause there. I realize this is a third of our overall general fund expenditures and because of that it has been very difficult to balance our budget without addressing some of the unsustainable growth in Medicaid. So please, happy to take questions on this budget. Representative Ricks.
Thank you. I'm looking specifically around the non-emergency medical transportation cuts that you're making. and just for those who are listening, medical transportation, non-medical transportation are the drivers that pick up people to take them to their medical appointments, etc. And it looks like you're cutting them from $36.40 to $4 per trip. Yep. They're mandatorily, because of the law, required to carry workers' comp, professional liability insurance, driver's training and safety equipment. They have to have a maintainer office space. They have to have dispatchers also do medical billing. They have to be available 24 hours a day. And you're tying that to because you're thinking that they should be paid the same as taxi drivers, which is not the same type of thing. So how would a person be able to carry on a business if you're reducing them by 89%? How does that work?
Rep Brown. Thank you, Madam Congress Chair. Thank you, Rep Ricks, for this question. First of all, I want to correct a problem that is in the long bill narrative. We had originally taken action to make it based on the PUC rates that you mentioned Um we actually then came back and based on a 10 average survey we increased that to So it is still a significant reduction. I will also note that this is only the pickup fee, and the department pays a fee of $3 per mile, and that $3 per mile will not change. So the rate reduction is closer to something less than that. In the book, it says 50%. I don't believe it's that severe since that $12 was incorrect, or the $4 was incorrect earlier. But this is, again, we are in many cases, and this is one of them, We are trying to make sure that our benefits and our payment rates don't exceed those of other states. I will also say that in this particular area, non-emergency medical transportation, there has been, I would say, I think, rampant waste, fraud, and abuse. And that is not to say anything about the providers that are in your particular community. but there have been, I think, even organized crime rings that have utilized non-emergency transport in inappropriate ways that have fleeced the state, if you will. So making sure that we get our rates in line with what other states are doing and that we're cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse is an important part of this. Rep Ricks.
I mean, I would say that, yeah, I'm aware of the waste. I'm aware of the fraud that has happened. And I also know that the state of Colorado should be putting more internal controls in the system to catch some of these things. One of the issues that arose was drivers billing 24 hours a day. I mean, there should have been checks in the system to stop things like that from happening because there's no way that you're running 24 hours a day. But nonetheless, even if you say that the $4 is now $12, that's still more than a 50% reduction. So I don't know how a company survives having all these mandatory fees and services that they need to carry and still be able to provide the proper care for our people, vulnerable people who need to get to transport to their medical appointments. So, you know, I'm just raising that issue.
Representative Furet. Thank you Madam Chair. My questions are on the community connector program. I know we decreased seven to nine million dollars. I'm wondering how much of that is the total of that program. So what percentage of the community connector program is being cut? Page 46. Yeah. Rep Brown. Thank you
Madam Chair and thank you referee I don't know I'm gonna have to check that number and check with our staff about what the total expenditures are in that program. Thank you madam chair I have a question out to Hickpuff as well to try to find that answer. My question around why are this in essence is a softer
skill set that we are working with with children on and we are cutting hard medical benefits and I'm wondering why we are not doing a steeper cut into the softer side of this service and the community connector program versus some of the harder more complex medical programs that we are cutting.
Yeah thank you Madam Chair I think that is a obviously ultimately a question for the General Assembly as a whole but I will say that you know there of families that I think benefit from this What we have tried to do is strike a balance between I think, the kids that can utilize this most effectively the most. And part of, I think, serving folks and kids with intellectual and developmental disabilities is making sure that they can effectively integrate into the world. We do not want folks isolated from the community, so that is the whole nature of this particular program. But your point is well taken, which is it is a very difficult decision, and we face difficult challenges in choosing where to make cuts.
Rep Phillips.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for all your work, of course. So I have a similar question. What's the overlap with kids with disabilities receiving special education services already, and so they're already getting like ESY service extended school year in the summer, so they'd be getting those services through school already. And so Community Connector is for kids with disabilities in addition to the services that they receive from school?
Brett Brown. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I will say yes. It will depend whether the services might be something that they might get at school will depend on the child. But obviously when you have an IEP and there are particular services that are provided at school, those happen in school. These are services that would be happening necessarily outside of the school. So there is not necessarily, while there might be some overlap between the two programs, it is not clear that they are, this was something we dug into at one point earlier in the year, and it is not entirely clear that these are certainly not duplicative programs. That's, I guess, the point I'm trying to make. Any other questions?
Okay, I don't see any. Please continue. Okay, let's move on to higher education. In higher education this year, we are including an increase of $160.9 million in cash funds from tuition. Our state funding for higher educational institutions will include no additional state funding, But we will include the supplemental decrease, which many of you may remember, of about $18.6 million, including $9.5 million general fund, will be restored for the coming year. So that cut that the institutions of higher education will be reversed. Our tuition rate assumptions in the Longville footnotes include a 3.5% for all institutions, except that community college systems can increase tuition up to 5%. The University of Colorado Springs can discontinue its lower tuition structure, and Western Colorado University may establish a separate tuition rate for its nursing program. For our college opportunity fund, the appropriation is a budget neutral adjustment that increases the college opportunity fund to about $17.9 million. and decreases state funding provided through fee-for-service contracts by the same amount. We continue to, well, sorry, our financial caseload, we include adjustments for caseload for financial aid, and that includes a net increase of $2.2 million in general fund. Fort Lewis College as many of you know we have an obligation per agreements that we have made with the tribes and with the federal government to cover Native American tuition at Fort Lewis College we are increasing funding for that through the general fund for a point I should say 0.8 million dollars. We are correcting a funding formula data error. Unfortunately, this costs us money. It's about 0.2 million dollars in general fund and specifically are impacted our Colorado Mesa and UNC. We are including a little bit more funding for two fiscal team positions at the Department of Higher Education. And the bill, in the interest of making very tough cuts, we are eliminating private and proprietary financial aid. This is a decrease of $14.2 million in general fund. I think I'll stop there and see if there's any questions. Members, any questions?
Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Caucus co-chair. Thank you, members of the JBC, for this. I know these are not easy decisions. I just had a quick question on, I guess, the proportionality of funding decreases that we're looking at for this. In my initial assessment, it looked like some of the smaller institutions were, you know even though it it looks like across the board that there was still going to be a bigger hit on some of the smaller institutions can you explain i guess a little bit about like where like the flat line i guess so not with cough not with the financial aid bit but like on the step
funding yeah i mean i would say that we mostly you know we did not have in in many prior years that had really difficult budget. Higher education has been where the JBC and the General Assembly have gone to cut funding. And we were able to at least mostly hold them harmless this year. It won't feel like that to some students whose tuition is going to go up more than they otherwise would. I am very sensitive to this idea of the fact that in certain cases, some institutions, based on the way that our formula works, are not maybe receiving as much money as they could, or that the cuts that smaller institutions take are more impactful. But we are mostly holding the status quo in terms of funding for higher education.
AML Bacon. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm just curious how the conversation on the funding formula for higher ed connects to this or where you see a connection to the work. I sorry I not sure if that committee or commission has finished its work or if they have talked to or worked with you in regards to any of the costs here particularly around adjustments that may need to be made in regards to tuition.
Rep. Serrata. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Thank you, AML Bacon. And I'm not entirely certain of your question. You're asking about the recommendations from CDHE about how to fund. They did come with a proposal for funding for the next fiscal year. The budget committee made a different decision about how to address funding for institutions of higher education. And it was a slight deviation from the recommendation from our analysts, which was to restore funding that was cut during the supplemental process. Well, initially through the executive order, and we maintained that cut through the supplemental process. and we restored it and we did actually what the institutions asked us to do which was to not uh run it back through the run back that nine million or so dollars through the formula but rather um restore it back to each cut that the institution received that each institution received and that was what they asked for assistant majority leader bacon well i to be clear it's not
what they asked for. They sent us a letter asking for tens of millions of dollars, which we obviously could not afford. So that was their first ask. But the second ask had to do with not running the funding that we were filling from the supplemental cut back through the formula, but just actually replacing what was cut to each institution. AML Bacon. Thank you. I think that's helpful. I'm not sure if other folks, in the room are familiar I think I was just trying to connect the dots with the work that's been done on the higher-end funding formulas so I will go back and listen to your response I do believe there is not sure if it's the higher ed Commission but there is a working group that is supposedly working on the formula in and of itself I'm not sure when that's supposed to be completed but thank you very much. Any other questions? Okay, I think we can keep moving on. Okay, then let's move on to
human services. On page 62, this is one of our big six departments that make up the bulk of our general fund budget. They have 5,574 FTE represented in this budget. You can see that in terms of a general fund reduction, we are looking at an $11 million reduction from the prior year, which is significant. This department administers and supervises most non public assistance and welfare programs in the state It is a significant part of our general fund budget And so consequently there are some significant reductions that you will see here I will say there is in terms of some supplement, you can see reflected the additional dollars the state is now responsible for, for SNAP administration due to the passage of H.R. 1. We are able to fund about $38 million out of the Healthy School Meals for All funding to support that work. But there are some increases that you will see here reflected, of course, in adoption and guardianship that's listed. There is a bill that is part of the orbital package that reduces the rates paid by the counties for these services, as well as we are eliminating case services at the county level, which will result in about a $5 million savings, but that is reflected in an orbital bill. You can see there is an increase for contracted competency beds, And we also have a placeholder within the budget for, I believe, $30 million to address our consent decree and an appeal made by Disability Colorado saying that we have not kept up with our obligations of the consent decree. And so we have a placeholder to try and address our good faith effort at meeting that agreement through services. We are also increasing funding for nutrition education through the increased funds to go along with healthy school meals for all. That is funding that is also related to SNAP services. we have to increase FTE to create a SNAP payment accuracy team within the department. This is, again, to address the obligation that the state will have to pay for SNAP benefits starting in fiscal year 28 if we don't significantly decrease the state's payment error rate. And so this is reflective of one of a set of efforts the state will be making to try and bring down that error rate from its current per, which is 9.97, which would ultimately require the state to cover a significantly greater share of SNAP benefits. there's also an increase in youth service radios that's essentially the only increase that you will see in this budget apart from those consent decree bed requirements the rest of this is you will see largely cuts so there is a reduction in general fund to the collaborative management program. We, in the first year, will be offsetting that decrease of general fund with an increase of cash funds but over a three period that will ultimately result in a decrease in general fund to the collaborative management line We are realigning BHA funding and doing some refinancing. We are decreasing, well, there are a number of various refinances. You can see a set of changes made to administration within CBMS. There's a reduction that is shown here, but we are actually increasing funding through our IT capital projects to do a reimagination of CBMS to ensure that we are, I don't know, living in the modern era and not incurring a number of errors and increased frustration from county providers as well as Coloradans who have to deal with that broken system. There are another other series of reductions to various programs. we did our best to evaluate the impact of these cuts. Our analyst went through and gave us sort of a health life safety assessment of what these reductions would do. We tried to stay in the low to medium range so as not to have a high impact on health life and safety with these cuts. but you can see we are eliminating some hospital peer support funding for services at the state hospitals. We are reducing funding to child abuse hotline, which is not expected to impact access to services. We are reducing funding for the home care allowance case management because more people are moving into HCBS services. So there has been a 96% decline since fiscal year 22 in the use of this particular type of case management. We've reduced the diaper distribution grant fund by half a million, a $400,000 reduction to Tony Gramsis, $400,000 reduction to summer EBT. and some reduced care coordination, reduced foster parent training, a reduction to the circle program, and a couple of other small cuts make up the cuts for the Department of Human Services. Members, questions?
Representative Carter. Thank you, Madam Clerk's chair. Once again, thank you to the JBC. I do have a question regarding the, again, the reduction in the 20 grams fund. Is there, do you know how much is in the current fund? We had the exact same issue last year. Thank you, Ms. Pope. The current appropriation is $11.6 million.
Thank you.
representative right in thank you madam chair um where is the 30 million dollar that's sort of the
hold for the competency rep sirota thank you madam caucus chair rep right in i refer to that as a placeholder so it's um funds set aside to put toward the consent decree but we have not actually implemented the expenditure that will come in some additional legislation.
Rep. Ryden.
Thank you. So it's not on this list, like the 30? There was, sorry, there was, I think, maybe an inflationary, yeah, there's an inflationary increase to the consent decree within this budget, as well as an increase of $2.1 million general fund for inpatient competency restoration beds at private hospitals, which is expected to support an additional five contracted beds and 15 patients per year. But these dollars are separate from the placeholder that I mentioned. Thanks.
Members, any other questions on human services? Was your hand up, AML Bacon? No? Okay. Okay, I don't see any questions. If you'd like to proceed. Okay, let's move on to judicial then. You can find that on page 72 of the narrative. And just as a reminder, the Judicial Department budget, that consists of state courts and probation as well as 11 independent agencies. So there is a lot packed in there. On page 72, you can see the largest general fund increase here is due to prior year actions, And much of that is related to an increase in judicial officers. So I believe that is about $6.2 million worth of that increase. And then there were an additional cost to the public defenders and probably the alternate defense counsel to match up with the increases needed. for those additional judicial officers. And that was the chief justice came and made her case that that was their top priority. It wasn't new funding requests, but their top priority was ensuring that we did not reduce funding that was approved last year for the increase in judges. Um, we also are having to fund an additional $2 million of general fund, uh, for the CBI DNA misconduct, uh, that has gone on. So that continues to be a cost burden to the state as individuals have their opportunity to seek justice in any sort of misconduct that impacted the outcome of their case. There's an increase with the Alternate Defense Council as their caseload has increased. They require more hours and more attorneys to contract We have some technical assistance adjustments They have increases within judicial for common policies that have to be reflected here There's an additional million dollars in courts and probation for language interpreters and translators. we had to make an increase to the state public defender staff to meet the aurora domestic violence docket after the aurora municipal court no longer is hearing those domestic violence cases and that was turned over to the state court system and we had to absorb those costs and that had a downstream effect on the public defender staff required there as well. There are some reductions in the budget due to lease space within the car center and the repairs that are almost completed after the fire and mess that was created there a couple years ago. So I think that would largely cover these changes. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have related to courts and probation or the independent agencies, which mostly didn't see much change in budget. Any questions for Chair Sirota or Representative Carter?
Just a brief one. Representative Sirota, is there any plans to have the public defender move back into the car center or are we going or what is the plan moving forward and will that give us any
type of savings? Thank you Madam Caucus Chair. Thank you Representative Carter. Great question. The public defenders don't want to move back into the car building so they're not going to. They have leased other space and so they are going to remain outside the car building. I don't think they liked being there and they like the different space that they have leased now. So they will stay there. And I can't remember who is expanding, but somebody is expanding their footprint within the car building. And then there may still be some additional available lease space within the
building. Any other questions? Seeing none, please proceed. Oh, it's the Department of Law. Okay, well, if there are no other questions, we can move on to labor and employment. There were not too many requests that you would see in the Department of Labor and Employment, really mostly just budget balancing actions. You can see CDLE is actually taking a 7.7% reduction in general fund. Due to changes in their operating common policies and then a few changes to some of the programs. I think the largest shift that will take place within CDLE has to do with the Colorado Disability Opportunity Office. and there is an orbital bill that is also shifting the one part that is related to the disability support fund into a special purpose authority And so over the course of a year there will be some shift in funds And ultimately the dollars coming in to continue to operate See do will be a $2 and 50 cent per license plate dollar amount from the sale of the historic license plates, mostly the black license plates that you see all over the place. and there are reductions that are being made to the scale up grant fund a reduction to the hospitality education grant program I will say that the bill is simply reducing funding for the year but the program will remain on the books if if it is something that is able to be funded in future years. A small reduction to the Office of Just Transition, small reduction to Division of Labor Standards as a result of vacancy savings, and a small reduction to the Office of Future Work. And you're back just to do the department. Any questions for Representative
Saroda, Rep. Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question from last year. I know after the
governor vetoed the passage of the Worker Protection Act, they had already deducted the money
out of here. I was just wondering, do you know if that ever got put back in there?
Chair Saroda. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Thank you, Representative Leader. I believe that correction has been made. Yes, Ms. Conagoraja gives the thumbs up.
thumbs up. Any other questions? Can you remind me again what the amount was? I was trying to find
that. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Rep. Leader, I don't remember the exact amount. It was in the
tens of thousands. 23. 23,000. All right. Any other questions for Rep. Sarota? Seeing none,
please proceed. Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair, and thank you to the caucus for your patience today. The Department of Law is the Attorney General's office. We've made a couple of different changes to that budget. In particular, the Colorado River Basin litigation funding, obviously it's important for us to protect our Colorado water, And so we are increasing spending authority by $3.8 million from the Colorado Water Board Litigation Fund. We are also making some technical adjustments, and then we are making some voluntary budget reductions to four areas in the department to realize vacancy savings. In particular, we are taking savings from vacant positions in the Medicaid fraud unit, the special prosecution unit, the Colorado Open Records and Open Meeting Law advisory role, and a vacant position in the appellant unit. We are changing funding associated with taking over the space previously occupied by the state public defender in the Ralph Carr building. And that will decrease total funds by $115,000 next year. And that's pretty much the Attorney General's office.
Questions? Any questions for Representative Brown? Seeing none please proceed Okay On to the legislative department Now as you all know we passed a separate bill related to the legislature but there are a couple of appropriations that ride in the long bill that are the result or that deal with the legislature Specifically, there is a change related to ballot analysis. The bill includes an increase of $2.6 million in general fund for the preparation distribution of the information booklet containing the statewide ballot measures. And then it includes some increase, sorry, a decrease of $200,000 for the biennial cost of living analysis that's used in the statutory formula for allocating funding to public schools. Those are the major items in the legislative department. Any questions for Representative Brown? Seeing none, please proceed.
Representative Sirota. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Moving on to the Department of Local Affairs on page 87, you can see that this department is taking a 3.1% reduction in general fund, a 1.4% reduction in total funds to the department, and it is mostly through just targeted minimal reductions to a number of different programs to ensure that we are still able to support these grant programs but make a reduction that can be impactful for the budget but still provide the support from those programs. One increase that you will see is half an FTE in the next fiscal year at $61,000 of general fund to have a dedicated CORA administrator that is currently, this work has currently been performed by term limited employees. And I will just stress that any time there was a request from any of the departments for additional FTE, we took a very, very hard look. We understand the look of that in a time of so many different budget reductions. And they did make a very, very strong case for the significant increase in workload that the department has seen related to core requests that require response. And they happen to be one department that didn't have a dedicated CORA administrator, which many other departments do. So we did agree to fund that. You can see adjustments to the targeted crime reduction grants of $300,000, a reduction of $250,000 to the child care facility development grant program that is eliminating the funding, but the program remains available for gift grants and donations if there is a philanthropist out there. there's a $250,000 deduction for the public defender and prosecutor behavioral health support grant program but I will say that there the CDAC has said that I think it's the amount of $750,000 that they have been appropriated over the last three years they actually have $200,000 remaining that they've been able to roll forward and they say that in this next budget year they can suffice to use that 200th that they have rolled forward, and so they're essentially foregoing that additional $250,000 appropriation in the coming year. The public defenders will still utilize their $250,000 appropriation, which they use up every year. There's a $200,000 reduction to the Peace Officer Mental Health Grant Program, which is a 10% reduction and a reduction of $280,000 to the Rural Economic Development Initiative grant program, which is still leaving half a million dollars intact.
Any questions for Chair Sirota? Seeing none, please proceed. All right, let's move on to the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. You can see a 3.3% reduction in general fund to this department. They are seeing a 5% increase in federal funds, which is apparently an informational adjustment, but they came forward with approximately $300,000 of general fund balancing measures to their lines. Any question to Chair Sirota on military and veterans affairs? Seeing none, please proceed. All right, let's move on to the Department of Natural Resources. you can see an increase of 4.7 percent general fund in this department though i would point out that general fund actually makes up a very small portion of this particular department they are largely funded through cash funds so the increases and general fund that you are seeing are attributable mostly to those common policy adjustments that they have to make statewide. There is additional investment being made to state parks from the Parks Cash Fund for new to recreation areas, the Pikes Peak and the North Sand Hill rec areas. We are also increasing FTE in the CWCB to implement the water implementation grants as they are anticipating increased dollars from sports betting coming into the fund. And so they anticipate needing more staff to be able to administer an increase in grants. And there's a significant severance tax restructure that also has some corresponding legislation in House Bill 1387 that you can reference as well. Any questions for Chair Sirota, AML Bacon?
Thank you. I'm wondering if you can help me understand, I think maybe it's cash funds or I am aware of a few cash funds and enterprises that are supposed to go into supporting CPW. Is there an accounting for those? I think I asked the same question around the supplementals to kind of understand what is all funding parks and wildlife. For example, I know we have lottery, we have production fees.
And so I curious if there is an accounting for that Thank you Madam Caucus Chair Chair Thank you AML Bacon I sure we have from our briefing materials a breakdown of the different fund sources for the department and what is funded out of those, so I'm sure we can find that for you.
AML Bacon?
And I'm curious if there is a particular line item for CPW, so I can see either how big their budget is and where the dollars are coming from.
Okay, thank you.
I have a copy of the long bill on my desk. You're welcome to look. But, yes.
Representative Brown?
Oh, sure, I was just going to say yes.
Okay. Any other questions for Chair Sirota and Rep Brown? Seeing none, please proceed. okay moving on to the department of personnel on page 98 um you can see a supplemental uh change so there's essentially at the five thousand dollar five thousand eight hundred sixty nine dollar general fund increase to the department of personnel. They are also more heavily funded based on reappropriated funds because other departments pay DPA essentially for the services that they are utilizing within DPA. So that's essentially how this budget is reflected. But there is a $650,000 decrease in fiscal year 26 for an early private lease termination. And then in fiscal year 27, you can see a $3.9 million increase in reappropriated funds for the annual fleet vehicle replacement, as well as a true up for printing services. We do also have an increase in one-time funding. Well, so they say they think it will be one-time funding, which is a total increase of $900,000 representing $300,000 of general fund for the Office of Administrative Courts to address Medicaid eligibility appeals. There is some additional money for the state payroll system, which is new, and we are very excited for that to be fully operational. as well as some additional reappropriated funds for the state's accounting system. Any questions for Rep. Sorota? Seeing none, please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Moving on to public health and the environment. Our budget includes some technical adjustments for changes to align with the tobacco revenue forecast. Many of you also have been following some of the issues with the state laboratory. We are increasing funding for the state laboratory for laboratory renewal by about $2 million in general fund. We are appropriating additional money for CDPHE to pay their utilities because of their higher than expected utility costs. We are refinancing general fund for the health service core, which is a decrease of in general fund We are including a reduction in the mobile sources operating expense line This is a decrease of $21.7 million from the electrifying school buses grant funds. We are, like in many other departments, we are having to end some helpful grant programs. We are reduced, or I should say decrease anyway, some of these funds. We are reducing the health disparities grant by $2.5 million in general fund. We are reducing distributions to local public health agencies by $1.5 million. dollars. We are decreasing funding to the test and fix water for kids program by 1.1 million dollars in general fund, but the department plans to extend the program as wholly cash funded, including these appropriations. We are reducing spending in the mobile home park water quality program. We are reducing funding for the care network, which is the child abuse response and evaluation network by $677,000. We are eliminating the community behavioral health program. It remains in statute, but without state funding. That decreases general fund by $581. And then we are reducing funding for mental health first aid by 45.6% or $210,000 in general fund.
Any questions?
Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. You had my attention at mobile home park water quality minus $1 million on page 104.
so you know we just passed that legislation can you talk about that representative brown yeah thank you um and my staff the jbc staff should come up and hit me with something if i get this wrong but my understanding is that the uh that cdphe has done a lot of testing and does not need this additional funding there will not be a reduction in testing or in resources because what they have found as they have gone through and tested water is that many more mobile home parks are actually on municipal water than they thought. And that's good news because municipal water is highly tested. It's actually tested continuously in many ways. So they are so these mobile home parks do not require as much testing and therefore they do not need the the $1 million in general fund.
Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. So CDPHE, I just don't know the timeline of JBC.
So CDPHE agreed to that after the new legislation was passed because it has nothing to do with municipal water. It has to do with brown, smelly water in the mobile home community. It's not about municipal testing. So was CDPHE on board with that cut after we passed that bill? This is related to a program that predates that program. So this is the Mobile Home Park Water Quality Program which I can remember what bill but I think it goes back to about 2023 And it requires a certain amount of testing and CDBHE has been involved in that And as they have done their work they have found that not as much testing is required because many more of these are being on municipal water than they thought.
Representative Phillips, one last question. Thank you. I think my question is more of a statement. So I'll make it a question. So what I'm understanding is that this, that $1 million cut does not impact the legislation that we just passed with the same name.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
Not that I am aware of.
Representative Brown.
Not that I am aware of. But we can get you more information. And if you have the specific bill number, I can go and check it out. I remember that bill, but I just can't remember what the number was.
Any other question?
My mind blank. Me? Yes, I have a question, Madam Chair.
Representative Wright, and I haven't eaten, my mind blanked. Okay. Thank you. Can you talk a little bit more about the health disparities one?
And I'm curious what it does and what it's currently funded at.
Representative Brown. Yeah, there's not a lot of information in the Longville narrative here, but we can get you more information about that. I don't have my figure-setting documents with me, and I don't know. Is there anyone? Let me get you more information, Representative Wrighton, afterwards.
Representative Wrighton. I'll follow up directly with one of the staff. You don't have to do that. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Any other questions for Representative Brown? Seeing none, please proceed. Thank you very much. Let's move on to public safety. Public safety, their overall general fund will decrease by about $5.6 million for the coming fiscal year, and that includes a 2.1% reduction. In particular, what we are looking at is because of the uncertainty and the lack of funding that we received related to certain disaster mitigation and prevention programs, we are actually increasing funding to backfill some of that by about $4.5 million in the coming year. We are increasing funding. We're including funding for an increase of about 60 community corrections beds at a per diem rate of about 1.55%. We are also including a footnote, assuming that providers may collect subsistence fees up to $20 per day, but it does not require it. This is an increase of about $1.5 million in general fund. The digital trunked radio system spending authority. If you were in appropriations earlier, you heard about digital trunked radio, and we will continue to talk about that today. That increase is about, there's an increase of about $1.1 million in reappropriated funds from the spending authority from this public safety communications revolving fund. We are increasing wildfire resiliency code enforcement from the, or I should say we're increasing the spending authority from the wildfire resiliency code or cash fund. and that is an increase of about $0.7 million total. We are centralizing community corrections referrals And that is those referrals are that will that will be a one time increase of about point four million dollars in general fund. We are increasing spending authority from the public school construction and inspection fund for anticipated increases in school construction projects. That's an increase of about three hundred thousand dollars. the bill includes funding for 3FTE to administer distributions to local law enforcement agencies pursuant to Prop 130 administration. It's budget neutral of cash funds from the Peace Officer Training and Support Fund. We are adjusting the bill reflects expected expenses for three DCJ grant programs. It's a reduction of about $15.3 million across three separate cash funds. The multidisciplinary crime prevention and crisis of the law enforcement workforce, recruitment, retention, and tuition, and smart policing. We are eliminating the general fund in the Colorado Auto Theft and Prevention Authority, or CATPAW. The bill eliminates the general fund appropriation and increases cash fund spending authority for this particular program. The reduction is $6.7 million in total funds, including $7.7 million in general funds. there is a general fund reduction to the admin in the executive director's office of about 1.8 million dollars there is a general fund reduction to fire investigations which is about 0.8 million total funds and about 0.7 general fund there's a dcj general fund reduction a general fund reduction to DHSEM, a general fund reduction to the Crime Information Center, a general fund reduction to the integrated criminal justice info system, and we are eliminating general fund to the Witness Protection Fund. Questions? Any questions for Representative Brown?
Oh, Representative Clifford and then Representative Goldstein. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to talk more about the thought process that went into the auto theft prevention cut. I have related to the funding that has been there as pretty important. Can you kind of give me what led us to where we are with cutting that budget 100%?
Representative Brown. Oh, it's not 100%, just $3 million.
Is that correct? Explain it to me, please.
Representative Brown? Yeah, sure. It's a reduction. It does not eliminate the program, but it does reduce the general fund authority related to it. So there's a reduction of $6.7 million in total funds, but there's an increase in spending authority. So we believe there's about $5 to $7 million in fee revenue still in there. So it is a significant reduction to the program. Obviously, we have seen sharp decreases in auto theft rates over the last several years. Colorado have declined more steeply than the rest of the country but it one of these programs where we would have loved to continue to put the general fund money in there but we simply can afford it
Representative Chair Sirota and then Representative Clifford. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. And I just also want to share that this was a significant general fund increase that occurred over the last two or three years. And so essentially what is happening is they are going to be returned back to their prior funding. Hopefully they have done the work to address what was happening during the pandemic. And like across the country, these auto theft is going down and we had a lot farther to go than other places in the country. And I encourage folks to find other sources beyond general fund because just like is happening in every other department, we had to find some general fund savings within the Department of Public Safety, particularly as we were having to make some general fund increases due to the loss of federal emergency management services. and some other federal funding that we have lost that we actually don't have the general fund to replace.
Representative Clifford. Thank you. I certainly give you all very much grace, and I appreciate both the humility with which you have dealt with these issues and the rigor. I'm also always thoroughly impressed when you guys are so on it with the answers. It really does make a difference in this process and the trust that goes into your thinking. So just so I'm clear, so what we're doing is they have roughly 5.7 million years saying still in a cash fund, and you're basically giving them spending authority to use that. And they're just in money elsewhere that we can pump the program up. if we find through this process some shaking somewhere of some tree that you haven't found, which I am always hopeful that someone can, is this a program that you think would be something that we... I'm going to ask a different question. I assert that you will tell me in the hierarchy of things that are emergent from things that we need to tend to, that this is one that you would also imagine would just need to stay where it is for the year? Or do you think that this is something where we should be looking for somewhere else to try to find some amount of money to build this up?
Chair, Rip Brown? Thank you. I think that is a difficult question, Rip Clifford, and I appreciate it very much. It is certainly a conversation about priorities There are a lot of folks that, you know, are having to make cuts to their health care or to their education programs. So, you know, I think it's a question, it's really a question for us as a legislature as to, you know, whether we think we need to continue the funding of this program at the level that it is and whether we can find a source of money outside of it. I don't know that I have a good answer for you.
Representative Clifford, one last question. Yes, last question. I do appreciate it. I often have a public safety view as you well know and I also am looking at this one particularly because I don think there anything more impactful to all of those things for a family to have their car stolen very often And I think that that has been a big impact on our state, and I've been very proud of the movement that we've made. So I'm going to continue to look and see what $5.7 million will really do. and I appreciate your engagement on this. I would like to know, when you were looking at this, was there a discussion at the time of how much this program will stop at that spending level or how impactful the $3 million change will be?
Chair Sirota? Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair, and thank you, Rev Clifford. Yes, I think we evaluated all of these reductions that we were looking at to try and figure out impact and because clearly a dollar spent here is a dollar we can't spend over here. And so trying to find that balance was really, really difficult. I will also say that, you know, there are members on our committee, I think maybe there's a bipartisan perspective that is shared that, you know, a number of these dollars were going toward local law enforcement coordination, and that if this is in fact a priority of local governments, then they can step up and choose that as their priority, because this state only has the capacity to do so much, and so what is happening within Catpaw is that they're essentially being returned back to prior year funding before this administration juiced that line item so much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chair Cerroda.
Rep Goldstein and then AML Bacon.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair, and thank you, Rep Cerroda and Rep Brown, for all your hard work. I can't imagine. I have some questions and actually don't have anything to do with taking and spending money. Under reallocate school safety funds, was there conversation around some of the organizations that utilize this money? For example, organizations that promote more armed people in schools versus organizations that focus around teaching people how to act during a crisis.
Chair Sirota, Representative Brown.
I might not be remembering correctly, but I do not believe that we had a conversation like that at the JVC about this.
Thank you.
AML Bacon.
Thank you. I just wanted to go back to the public safety component around CATPA. And I think you answered it a little bit in the sense of how it has been returned to, I guess, the funding that it was at before. And I think that's what I wanted to ask you about. You know, there was an infusion. I've been here six years. We put over $150 million into public safety. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what that infusion was to that division. And also if there was a sense of an accounting of the grant dollars public safety may have received as well as when we did fund public safety to issue grants around auto theft and some of the other safety measures how much of that money that we sent to public safety to grant out, they actually granted to their departments and themselves. And if that is a, you know, I can imagine we've been here for a long time, that is a longer conversation. But it has been a conversation with public safety in regards to how much money has been given to that department in the last couple of years, how much money they're getting in federal grants, and given the dollars that we have given to the department to issue in grants, How much of that have they given themselves? And so please don't feel like you have to answer all of that here. But I am curious, going back to auto theft, what they were funded at maybe even before three years ago and how much money were they given in the last couple of years? And if you have if you have a sense of that.
Representative Sarota.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. I think maybe I can just offer some reflection over the last few years, because I don't have an exact answer to your question, though. they do report. And so I've seen the sort of the spreadsheets of grant recipients for both Catpaw and, for example, for the Multidisciplinary Crime Prevention and Crisis Intervention. You are correct. Millions and millions and millions of dollars we have spent over the last several years on these in this department and in these grant programs in particular. And we have paired back that multidisciplinary crime prevention and crisis intervention grant program in particular. There were some curious and challenging grants delivered through that program, I think, that caused us to pair back some of the funding that was being allocated there. I don't know the splits between what the department itself has been utilizing out of those additional general fund dollars to CATPA, but yes, they have been utilizing some of them. So some of them are going out to locals, and some of them are staying within the state to do some of that coordinating work at the state level with state patrol.
Any other questions? Seeing none, please proceed. Representative Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Department of Regulatory Agencies has a number of changes this year. One, we are refinancing some general funds from the Executive Director's Office, about $300,000. We are reducing the leased space line item within the Executive Director's Office, a total reduction of $1.7 million, including $121,000 in general fund. House Bill 25-11-54, we are correcting the annualization of this enterprise, and we're going to be able to do that. That's a reduction of $0.7 million from the telephone users and disabilities cashed on. There's a base reduction to the Division of Insurance and the Colorado Civil Rights Division that reduces general fund by about $401,000. And then we're making some technical adjustments. Any questions?
Any questions for Brown? Seeing none, please proceed. All right. Department of Revenue.
Some of the things going on in the Department of Revenue this year in this bill are including additional resources to assist Colorado taxpayers and promote accurate state-level return filings and compliance under the federal tax code. Thanks, HR1. Thank you to HR1 for this. This is a million dollars of general fund. We are realigning the DMV with a budget-neutral reallocation of $1.1 million in cash funds. We include a March forecast adjustment based on the OSPB March forecast, which includes a net general fund decrease of $9.7 million based on those revenue projections. We are reducing the marketing for the lottery by $5 million. We are including $1.3 million in general fund reductions to the executive director's office and the DMV as a balancing action. And then we're making some other common policy changes.
Any questions for Representative Brown? Seeing none, please proceed.
Okay, Department of State. We are annualizing the supplemental increase for legal resources that we enacted during the supplemental process. That's about $200,000 in the Department of State's cash fund. we are modernizing the phone systems in the department that's about an increase of about $185,000 we are hiring a consultant to plan the migration away from the antiquated database of Informix it's a one time increase of $100,000 and then it's after that it's just common policy changes Oh, I should also say we are reducing the only, we are eliminating the only general fund in the entire department, which is a reduction of $4,254. Thank you.
We're Brown. Any questions for Representative Brown? Seeing none, please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Moving on to the Department of Transportation on page 125. This department is not simple, but from your perspective in viewing long bill allocations, it is basically just changes made to reflect revenue forecast changes for each of these revenue streams for the local transit and rail grant enterprise the bridge and tunnel enterprise the high performance transportation enterprise the multimodal transportation and mitigation options fund the non area pollution and mitigation enterprise fuels impact enterprise, construction, maintenance, and operations revenue, and then the clean transit enterprise. And so you can see on page 126 changes in those forecast projections, and that is what gets reflected in the long bill. And then the Transportation Commission is who makes choices about local projects and the like out of this funding. What is not reflected in here, of course, are some of the sweeps and changes to, in particular, the multimodal fund. Any questions?
Seeing none, please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Moving on to the Department of Treasury on page 128, you can see an increase in this budget due to technical adjustments primarily related to forecast for property tax exemptions and the Highway Users Tax Fund. We are increasing operating funds available in the unclaimed property division related to an increase that they are seeing in getting out individuals' funds from the unclaimed property trust fund. There is a small increase to admin staff and to software as well, but not a lot of changes to this department.
Representative Garcia. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Could you maybe just speak a little bit more about the forecast for the property tax exemptions and the Highway User Tax Fund?
Chair Sirota. Say that again. I'm not sure that I can they are just included in here for informational purposes but their forecasts and they're likely to change again representative
Garcia No?
Any other questions for Chair Sirota? Seeing none, Chair Sirota?
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. I think then we come to capital construction and IT projects. You can see on page 131 of your forecast what it is that we are funding, and it is not the complete list that was submitted from the CDC. We tried to fund as much as we could, but we were not able to get through the entire list, And I think the same can be said for IT capital projects. They had requested funding for, I think, three additional projects that we weren't able to fund.
Any question for Chair Sirota, seeing Rep. Story and then AML Bacon?
Rep. Story. I had a question on the previous one, but that's okay.
All righty. We'll go with AML Bacon. I sorry Are we at it Is that I just did them together Okay All right so are you asking your question Rep Story Will you please ask your question?
It was on the previous section.
Okay, well, please ask, and if they're willing to respond, they will. No, we are not. No. Back to Treasury.
in the discussion about the property tax exemptions and highway users tax fund, it says includes a net increase of $103.7 million, blah, blah, blah, informational purposes. Like what makes up that $103.7 million? Do you know what the elements are? There is a staffer moving to the desk.
Mr. Rickman to the rescue.
Chair Sirota. I see. So these are increases in the forecast from the previous year related to the senior property tax homestead exemption, as well as the business personal property tax exemption. Okay. And as noted, highly likely to continue to change because they're forecasts.
Thank you, Chair Saruda. Rep Story, does that satisfy your question?
Thank you. Thank you.
AML Bacon.
Thank you. I am not entirely sure where this comment may go related to IT, but I know we started early with the governor's office. And I may have mentioned to you, and this is mostly a comment, and if any of our colleagues are listening, A legislative audit would like to submit a letter to JBC, and we're contemplating if we should put this as a footnote. We're trying to figure out where it would go, whether it's the capital section on IT or generally with OIT. But legislative audit has been concerned about IT not meeting its benchmarks, particularly when it came to reviewing its assets, which includes, you know, software and hardware and retiring some technology. And so legislative audit wanted to request that JBC include specific reporting requirements to OIT and JBC's 2026 formal RFI to the governor. And so we hope to be submitting a letter to you all referencing that. Ultimately, we are looking for an articulation of how OIT will meet their benchmarks by June. And we hope to check back in with them as ledge audit by December, particularly ahead of any supplemental requests. And so I'm not sure. I do believe I kind of mentioned it to you. I did want to mention to our colleagues in caucus and kind of put out here as a recorded effort that ledge audit has a significant concern on their spending In response to a million line item to deal with their assets they wrote us back that they have spent I think around million And so I just wanted to put that on the record, and we may figure out how to submit this letter to you all and request a footnote to their budget.
Okay. Please, any questions? Yes, web story.
While we're still on this topic, on capital construction. So again, like everyone else, I appreciate all the work that's gone into, you know, working on the budget. And I know it's immense, and I don't think any of us can truly relate to it unless we've been on JVC. But thanks for all of your effort and the staff that support you. But I do want to share a little bit about capital construction because I've been on the committee, this is my eighth year, sitting on CDC since I got to the legislature. And while there is information on these pages, 133 and 134, and then backing up a little bit on the spreadsheet, I just want to provide a little bit of additional context. because I just think it's important. So we do have controlled maintenance level requests every year, and it's level one being the highest priority, two and three. We almost never go below level one unless we have extensive funding, which we did with ARPA dollars that one year. But we prioritized level one controlled maintenance, but JBC did cut out $6.6 million of the $109.4 million request that was the entirety of level one because we have issues with our budget. And so the entities that will not get their projects done are bumming because they're losing upgrade to lighting, security, and efficiency, a gate project for the CDPHE lab, Adams State University roof replacement. Anyway, these are the kinds of things that are not going to get done this year that they thought they were. And then there are projects that we requested in our priority list that are going to happen, and one of them CSU's Clark building renovation this is the third phase we delayed a year we left them hanging for a year and didn't fund it so now we're finishing up that project they helped us out with our budget last year by letting us not fund it but you know a couple of other projects sim hip campus utility infrastructure upgrade upgrade, which is important, Colorado State Penitentiary, electronic security system replacement. They have security systems in DOC that they have to now manually shut down all the doors if they have an emergency because the buttons don't work anymore to, you know, shut it down all at once. And that's a huge safety risk when they have to walk through the building and make that happen. And then also, you know, some cash funding projects, which usually are just a given, and and that those will be funded because they're cash. But some significant things were cut from our priority list that was shared with JBC. One is a subsequent phase of critical living unit shower drain toilet room improvements at Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility where they can't utilize those showers because they don't drain because the pipes are all plugged up and whatever and so they have some showers at work and some that don't but the big one was the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind West Hall renovation and addition that's in Colorado Springs and their facility is in abysmal shape and they're serving our most vulnerable population of kids across the state who are deaf and or blind. And many of them also have significant physical disabilities and intellectual disabilities as well. And they have been asking for this project for years, and we still can't figure out how to make that happen. And so I just, this is not an offense against JBC. Like, I get what is happening, and I understand why we can't fund all the things. But the magnitude of the issue is that at CDC, we receive requests for funding that amount to about a billion dollars of capital needs every year. and those are all the department of corrections um our state parks um their buildings in their parking lots um all of our institutions of higher ed that are public and all of our state buildings like the capitol and our subsequent support buildings department of revenue etc and among all of them, they send their highest priorities that total about a billion dollars of capital needs every year. And we generally fund somewhere in the neighborhood of, or round number, about $150 million, which is 15% of the total need. But the reality is, is behind the curtain, is about $10 or $15 billion more of needs that they did not share with us that's in their needs list.
Rep Story? Do you have questions for the speakers?
I want people to understand, yes, what's going on and why this matters to our budget. That's the question. That's all. And so in general, we are covering about 1% to 1.5% of our capital needs every year. And you should just know that as we continue to work through all of this budget.
Representative Sirota or Brown, is there any feedback?
Well, just I very much appreciate Representative Story's incredible work over the last eight years on the CDC and all that you have put into it and the painstaking hours you have put toward trying to analyze a billion dollars worth of necessary work to be done across state properties it the unsexy work of state government that is still essential And yes we are underfunding it to a tremendous magnitude And so I recognize how difficult your job has been to try and narrow down budget requests to just barely scraping by and how incredibly frustrating that must feel year after year. And we very much appreciate and are grateful for your work.
And no different than you feel. That's my point, too. Like, just want people to understand.
So if there are no more questions, I'd be happy to move along. Please, thank you.
So we have 64 orbital bills, And I think for time's sake to make sure we can go through them, I might just they are in chronological order in your in your book here, mostly, I think. And so maybe for time's sake, I might group them by department and just kind of give a brief once over and then we can see if there are any particular bills that that members want to focus on. So for DOC, there's just one orbital bill that has to do with changes to the broadband infrastructure cash fund to be able to fund a few more facilities with this cash fund, given that previous projects came in slightly under budget. and seeing no questions there we'll move on to uh cdeck there is um this is a bill that will simply allow for um federal funds to be utilized for title 4e programming it is making changes to um to just comply with make sure that we are um comporting with federal law and allowable uses for excess Title IV-E funding.
And we do have a question? Please proceed now. All right.
So then that takes us to CDE, and there are a number of bills related to the Department of Education. I would say, so the first one, 1350, has to do with appropriations for our legacy school food programs and utilizing the Healthy School Meals for All funding for those funds. House Bill 1351 has to do with the Healthy School Meals for All program. There are a couple transfers named in this bill. One is to make a transfer of $31 million from the Healthy School Meals for All cash fund into the state ed fund to replace what had been essentially borrowed over the last two fiscal years to ensure we were fully funding Healthy School Meals for All. And it also sets in place a two pause in the transfer that was established in the bill that the legislature passed last year that made statutory changes in addition to referring Proposition LL that would have transferred funds in the state ed fund into the Healthy School Meals for All cash fund based on the additional dollars that were projected to come into the state ed fund from Proposition LL And we are pausing that for two years as we are trying to stabilize the state ed fund And this program can get its feet under itself as we are now beginning the local food producer and employee assistance grant programs that we had previously been unable to fund. We are reducing the frequency of redact evaluations to save ourselves $750,000 for school finance. House Bill 1353 makes it so that our state assessment for social studies will only be conducted for seventh graders instead of a sampling of fourth and seventh graders, saving us $300,000. And I would encourage the legislature to come back next year and remove the testing for seventh graders because it is not a good use of funds. it's very limited sampling and I don't think this is actually the argument is if you don't test it they won't teach it and I disagree with that assessment. This is not a good use of state funds but here we are. This is what we are able to do this year.
Representative, we do have a question. Can you please keep it brief? Thank you.
Thank you. I always keep it brief. I appreciate it. Just on that, the reason that we are not doing 7th grade testing, it seems weird that we're only keeping that. So can you just give a little color on that? Because it seems like there's interest in removing it entirely. And I'm just curious where that came about.
Yes, I would support removing it entirely, as would, I think, a number of colleagues. This has been a passion project of the governor. And he very much believes in this particular test. The state board, I believe, twice has voted to eliminate testing for social studies. but we need a governor's signature to make it law.
Representative Brown, any other questions? Please proceed.
Thank you. We are also in House Bill 1353 repealing the Science Teacher Professional Development Program early to save $1.5 million. There is a reduction of the appropriation. would be cut in half for the out-of-school-time grant program that was appropriated $3 million, and so we are reducing that by half. We are repealing this local accountability system grant program that was to pilot a couple of programs for schools on the accountability clock. It doesn't repeal the accountability statute, but it does save us about $500,000 in this particular pilot program, which hopefully we have learned lessons from and can implement them. We are phasing out the TREP program, the teacher recruitment education program, that will ultimately save approximately $3 million a year. So the students that will be in their sixth year will still be able to complete that sixth year of the program, sixth year of high school. But it would be phased out for any new students coming on.
And I believe we have a question.
Yes, Representative Espinoza. Thank you Madam Chair Just a little more clarification on the phasing out of this program Will any students then be affected or do they have adequate notice that the program is being terminated I mean, are there any people getting caught in the middle of this termination? I know you're attempting not to do that by the limited funding, but just wanted some clarification on that.
Chair Sirota. Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Thank you, Representative Espinoza. I believe that the program opens for, I don't know if you call it application, but students through their high schools, I think it begins in sometime the end of March and closes in May. And the Department of Education has communicated to schools that with these budget actions, they anticipate that this funding will not be available for new cohorts of students. I will say that it does not, you know, those students are still eligible to enroll in those post-secondary institutions, and they are still eligible for Pell Grants, for financial aid from those schools. We also have a tax credit available for higher education in Colorado. So I think there are still a number of pathways that remain for students if they want to continue on a trajectory to become educators in the state of Colorado. We love them. We want them. And I think all the members of the committee have offered support for any student who might be impacted by this change in helping them with any of these institutions and forging a new pathway.
Any other questions for Rep. Saroda? Seeing none, please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. just a couple more. We are reducing the academic accelerator grant program appropriation. This had received, I think it was a $24 million appropriation three years ago. There were $8 million remaining for the final year of this program. And that appropriation has been reduced by about $5 million. There is a swap. So we are not actually reducing funding for BEST through this $70 million refinance, but we are diverting money that would have gone into the permanent fund, and we are refinancing general fund with that $70 million in order to support BEST and the charter school facilities grant program. And then one more, there is, no.
Representative Brown. Thank you. In the office of the governor, 1360 is about the Affordable Housing Financing Fund and in particular it directs, it transfers 130 million dollars from the state affordable housing fund prop one two, three money into the general fund, make some other transfers, but that is the basic nature of that particular bill. 1361 is a repeal of the Pay for Success program. This program existed within the Office of Economic Development. it paid for particular grants for youth programs. I believe its last program has implemented a couple of different programs, but its last program was completed some time ago, and this repeals the program. 1362 is a repeal of the Decarbonization Tax Credits Administration Fund. The law only takes effect if 1405, which is the cash transfers fund, becomes law, but it will transfer unexpended and unencumbered balance in this tax credits cash fund to the general fund.
In health care policy and financing, I can move on unless there's questions about the governor's office. There aren't any questions. Please proceed.
In health care policy and financing, the Appropriations Committee postponed indefinitely 1365 this morning, so we won't talk about that. 1366 is a bill that will allow us to draw down additional federal dollars at no expense to the state through the state-directed payment program and specifically for Denver Health and their physician services. It should net the state and Denver Health about $11.3 million in total funds. House Bill 1367 allows us to retain federal matching funds in excess of 50% for services provided during the pandemic when the federal government provided an enhanced match. Specifically, this is about continuing to allow us to utilize certified public expenditures by local governments that serve Medicaid clients as state match for federal funds. House Bill 1411 makes some significant changes to the Cover All Coloradans program. The Cover All Coloradans program is a program that provides a Medicaid-like program for pregnant folks as well as children who lack documentation. The bill specifically makes, because of cost increases in the program, the bill makes specific changes to the benefit structure here. It eliminates long-term services and supports for people who are not already using them. It allows, it caps the dental services to about $750 annually. It limits behavioral health services to those that are fee-for-service rather than through the managed care system. It removes coordinated care services through the ACC. It specifies that all services will be offered on a fee-for-service basis, and this is to comply with federal policies. So many of the things, so the Accountable Care Collaborative program is really, has been off the table since the new administration took over for this particular program. And it caps enrollment for children if one of two conditions are met. Either we hit 25 children or our expenditures exceed the appropriation or the forecasted projection and appropriation by 5% in the first quarter. But the enrollment will cap at 25,000 regardless. This is the hardest bill in the whole package for me. that is but that oh there is one more bill in in HICPF which relates to statistical sampling and extrapolation it is a way for us to make sure that billing in non-emergency medical transport as well as behavioral health services for kids with autism are being appropriately that we are we are looking at claims in the past that were subject to an audit by the federal OIG and we can use extrapolation to review those claims it's a statistical method for figuring out how much inappropriate billing there might have been that's the of the nature of 1412.
Questions?
Representative Marshall. Thank you. I got a couple of questions on 1411 because I'm just concerned about the massive expansion. My understanding is in 221289, when it first came out, the fiscal note had a $10 million general fund hit because some of it was federal matching funds for pregnant individuals. I'm trying to, so there was some mix and matching there. So what's the actual general fund hit going forward this fiscal year then?
Representative Brown. Yeah, thank you very much. And I have to get my notes out, our figure-setting documents, which I brought with me. But I will say that the reductions in this program on an annualized basis take out, thank you very much, take out about 25% of the cost of the overall program. The general fund hit, if you will, based on the February forecast for 26-27, we are projecting total funds for the children portion to be about $96,000 in general fund. The total general funds, including pregnant people, is about $127 million.
Representative Marshall. You said $96,000, but I'm assuming it's $96 million.
Sorry, I meant $96 million. Yes, thank you.
So in four years, we went from $10 million to $96 million in the projections. And my understanding is we are looking at an enrollment of around $3,000 as projection, and now we have a cap of $25,000. When I go back to my constituents and try and explain this, is it a competency issue or a deception issue to be off by a factor of 8 to 10? because that is just really difficult to defend at the end of the day, again, in just four years.
So where was the disconnect here Chair Sirota Thank you Madam Caucus Chair Representative Marshall I sure you not calling our nonpartisan staff incompetent but they did the best they could to make projections based on a similar program that had been in operation in Oregon. That is how they made those projections. We then also underwent a significant migrant crisis during the time between when the bill was enacted and then when it was implemented. So yes, now we are accounting for more children and pregnant people in the program than initially projected. And they also had anticipated that these children in the program would cost less than children like children on Medicaid and CHIP based on those estimates from Oregon. But what they discovered essentially was these are kids just like any other kid, and they get sick like other kids too. And so that estimate was not quite accurate as well.
Representative Brown?
Thank you. I don't know that I could add much to Chair Sirota's comments there. But I would say that if I was going back to my constituents, and I will, that these are clearly tens of thousands of kids who need health care, and we are in a position where we are trying to manage our state budget crisis, and we are severely limiting the nature of the program and the benefits that they get. the program was set up to be a mirror program to medicaid and we no longer can afford it to be entirely a mirror program so the types of cuts the severity of the cuts in this program far exceed
the severity of cuts in other in other parts of the medicaid budget representative marshall one
last question we're bumping against the time clock here thank you
Thank you. So I also understand, I guess I missed it in the bill, but the cap was only triggered if there's a 5% increase in one quarter. So if it's a 4% in the first quarter and 3% second, or is that in a yearly basis? I mean, I'm just trying to wrap my head around that. If it's four in each quarter, we wind up having 17%, 4%, 4%, 4%. There's no cap? Or is it, how's that working?
Representative Brown.
Yeah, it's the quarter, it's 4% above the projection. So if you trip the projection, the wire of projection, then, you know, so if you get to the next quarter and now you've exceeded that by 5%, then the cap would go into place. So it is not a cumulative 17%, but it is a overall projection. And the projections for the spending in the program are that $96 million in general fund for kids. The cap is written so that it only applies to kids. Thank you.
Any other questions for Rob Brown and Chair Sirota? Seeing none, please proceed.
I think, thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. In the interest of time I might just suggest we open it up to questions to the caucus if there are particular bills that members want to talk about Are there any specific questions on the long bill the orbital Representative Phillips
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go back to the cut for community connectors. And just is it correct that so parents were approved for one year of those services, but now they'll be cut. So now they're being told already, I guess. they're being told that they're only going to get half a year of those services. Is that correct, Chair Sirota?
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. So there are a few things that are happening in the Community Connector Program, and one has to do with reductions to rates, payment rates, and the other has to do with changes to utilization. So it's creating a cap on services, service hours provided, but also then saying that those services for children should be provided to those six and up because it is supposed to be a service that provides for community engagement. and that it's not particularly appropriate for kids under six. And so unless there are very special circumstances for kids that age, it would be limited to those kids six and above.
Representative Phillips.
Okay, thank you. I understand the age part, but what I'm hearing from parents that use the service is that HICPF is directing them to retroactively backdate care that was already approved for the year. So not the age issue. I understand the age is being raised. But parents are saying that because of this, that they were approved for a year, and now they're not going to get those services for the full year.
Chair Saroda?
And it could be wrong, but I just need a response.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair, and thank you, Representative Phillips. It is escaping me the exact hours that were capped, but they were capped during supplemental. So that essentially would, I believe, change hours eligible for the rest of the fiscal year.
Any other questions, Representative Smith?
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. I have a question about the appropriations to the Auraria Higher Education Center. I know last year a bill was run to conduct a study on its function, and I have yet to see it, but I'm wondering, you know, was that presented to the JBC? Are there going to be any changes contemplated in the future?
Chair Ceruta.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. Thank you, Representative Smith. Yes, that study has been completed. I know it was very, very important to the institutions that make up AHEC, but I, in full disclosure, have spent zero time on it because we've been doing other things. And I don't know if all of the institutions are in agreement based on what came out of the study and what to do going forward. But the supplemental, or sorry, the orbital bill that we have related to AHEC is simply continuing the direct appropriation for AHEC so that it doesn't become a double count as was before when it was appropriated. And then it was a double count. We're getting rid of the double count with the direct appropriation. And as for future changes to AHEC, that's a future conversation that I'm sure everyone can engage in, but not for this budget cycle.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions for Rep. Sirota and Rep. Brown? Seeing none, well, I just want to say thank you to Representative Brown and Chair Sarota for all the work that they have done on our budget and the orbital bills. I would like to give you the last statement to share with us whatever else you want to share, but thank you for all your work.
Thank you, Madam Caucus Chair. I appreciate that and appreciate all of you who hung in here for, I don't know, it's been three hours maybe. um it's a lot to take in these are a lot of very very painful cuts uh cuts that we didn't want to have to make um and now you know you are being asked to to maintain them in order to balance the budget um we really appreciate your engagement through this entire process since we started with our briefings and the budget submission from the governor back in november um it's been really um it's been an intense process we've got more to go as we go through second reading and third reading um i you know i hope you see this as a you know painful but perfect budget and have no desire to make any amendments or changes to it if you disagree and you do have amendments um please bring them to Mr Kurtz who is over here He is our JBC staff who will be sort of the incoming analyst and he can direct you to the correct person to help you write your amendment Those amendments are due by 4 p.m. today. So I doubt you have any, but if you do, please get them in by 4. And we look forward to a spirited debate tomorrow.
Thank you everyone. Have a wonderful rest of your day and thank you to all the colleagues who come by. We are adjourned.
Thank you. Thank you.