March 26, 2026 · Budget Committee · 16,366 words · 13 speakers · 388 segments
. Thank you. THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. WE'RE JUST GOING TO WORK THROUGH SOME MORE THINGS IN A DISORDERLY WAY. SO I THINK FIRST THERE IS A SUGGESTION FROM SENATOR KERKMEYER or Vice Chair Bridges on some possible Prop EE tobacco funds?
Thank you, Madam Chair. We have about $10 million from General Fund going into UPK. There are enough funds in the cash fund to support that rather than those dollars coming from General Fund. Given the state of our budget, it seems prudent that we move those dollars from the cash fund instead of taking $10 million from the general fund. So I don't know if we need someone in here to do that. I don't know if that requires a bill as part of the transfer bill or how that works.
Ms. Shen. There we go. Thank you Madam Chair. Kelly Shin, JVC staff. Mr. Vicer, could you clarify what exact cash fund you're looking for and if you are anticipating more or less money, like I guess which cash tobacco cessation money the tobacco education programs cessation okay you are you looking to just take from the balance of that or yes we don't know the answer other than they're supposed to be ten million dollars okay so how the distribution is structured there is like a proposed tax increase starting in July 2027 and then with that tax increase there's a proposed increase in the amount that's supposed to go to the tobacco education programs fund and that amount is 10 million but there's also some amount of balance within the tobacco education prevention cessation grant program fund I don't have the exact THAT IS AN UN IT A GRANT PROGRAM SO YOU KNOW PRESUMABLY SOME AMOUNT IS MAYBE UNENCUMBERED BUT THERE IS A CASH ON BALANCE THERE BUT I SUSPECT THAT SOME AMOUNT OF THAT IS ALSO TIED UP IN GRANTS I think it the scheduled increase is what they were thinking but you saying that not happening until July 1 of 27
Let me, Madam Chair, let me pull up the language in statute. It looks like for each fiscal year commencing on or after July 1, 2027, the tobacco education amount goes to $30 million from $20 million.
Oh, but are those dollars coming in now? So it's already a plan. The increase is happening now, and those are funds that will be made available for grants in the following year, but we would have the funds this year. So Madam Chair, I believe the distribution that we would get or that the Tobacco Education Programs Fund would get would be starting July 1, 2027. They have some amount of grants that are already existing. But my question is the dollars are actually accruing in the year prior would be my assumption if they are planning to grant them all out in the following year.
Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the idea is rather than those dollars accruing in there and then going out to those programs, that we would send those dollars instead to UPK. Not on July 1, but I guess on July 30th or whenever it is that those funds are available.
Okay. I think and reduce the general fund that is going to UPK.
So would the idea be to then transfer the money that's currently scheduled to go to the tobacco education fund and transfer that to the preschool program's cash fund? Is that the idea? Or to change initially the distribution of where money is going? Because I think the, I guess either way, it would require some kind of legislation.
Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's not to change the redistribution. This is a one-time change. It would simply be to eliminate that additional $10 million on July 1 that would be coming in and instead redirect those funds over the course of the year or at one time, whatever you think is best. to the UPK cash fund.
I don't know what the name. What was the name? The preschool program cash fund. And then you'd reduce by $10 million the general fund. Yeah. Senator Mobley.
So it seems like the tobacco cash fund, whatever, the tax revenue has been going down pretty consistently. And I hear now there's a tax increase, which I'm great. But is this tobacco cessation, are these grants working? Are less people smoking? And if so, I don't know. I have some reservations about not funding that adequately because if it's working and particularly if we have less young people who are starting to smoke. And I don't know. I don't expect you to know the answer to that. But that's something I want to understand.
Ms. Shen.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have the rates right now with me, but I will say that Proposition EE, the forecast for that is a little bit different than the other tobacco taxes, since it sort of encumbers a wider range. It's also had, like, a tax on nicotine products. So the forecast for that one is not going down necessarily. It's fairly steady. Okay.
People like their pouches. Yay, pouches and vapes. Let's fund UPK. Okay. Ms Shen does that seem clear Ms Kanagaraja So just to be clear is the proposal then to transfer basically money that coming into the tobacco ed programs transfer it to preschool programs
but then, and then refinance basically within UPK. And then the, sorry, Phoebe Kanagaraja, JBC staff, just to clarify, I think that it would be the appropriation clause of that bill that swaps the 10 million general fund with 10 million UPK. Sure. And then this would need to be a separate bill from the joint transfer bill. It would be its own thing. And do you want, then, the transfer to happen in 25, 20, or 26, 27, it sounds like?
Yes. Okay. Okay. We'll let you investigate how that's going to work. Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Presumably, if they could transfer $10 million on July 1, 27, they could probably transfer $30 million on June 30th. I'm sure there's a way to make this work.
We'll figure that part out. I believe in you. Yeah. We have the idea now. Okay. Are there any objections to that motion? Was it a motion? Yeah, it was definitely a motion. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6 to 0. Thank you.
Ms. Shen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one point of clarification. Does the motion include sending a bill to draft?
Yes. Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess with the intention of running with the long bill, if possible. I know that it's very late in the game for that, but hopefully it's easy and straightforward.
I'm sure it is.
At a minimum, reflecting it in the long bill. We'll get to work. Thank you.
Okay. Yeah, right. Thank you.
If there is a delay and it doesn't run with the long bill, I think we still would like to reflect that in the long bill.
Would you like a separate motion for that?
Director Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Vice Chair, I will go ahead and build it in based on your direction as an assumption, which means that it would be reflected in balancing and it would be assumed in balancing and reflected in the long bill narrative, regardless of whether it's available to run with the package. Reflecting in the long bill would be a slightly different conversation because that would be changing the long bill appropriation. in the bill. Which we were going to do in the bill.
Fine.
Yeah, because the appropriation change will run in the actual bill. So semantics, but I think that's, it will be in balancing, yes.
Sounds great. Okay. Senator Amabile.
So do you have another, more things on your list? Yes. Okay, because I want to talk about this as far as I've liked at some point.
For which?
For nursing homes.
Let's get there.
but not quite yet.
Do you want to talk about... Okay. I have a few things maybe that would be helpful to have Ms. Bickle for. Paging Ms. Bickle. Director Harper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Craig Harper, GBC staff. I think the only question that I have, and it was probably clear to the others but the million one time the property money We had also been talking about some other methods of savings and I would put forward a suggestion to the committee to go to draft on a bill that would reduce funding for best by about million and a somewhat equal amount to the charter school facility assistance reduction making a reduction Maybe it's $20 million. I'm not sure. But so that it's sort of a fair reduction to both of the school capital funding mechanisms. I don't know that those numbers, maybe the charter number will have to be a little bit different. And we're waiting on some feedback from CDE about federal funds and where that would go. but I just kind of wanted to bring this up to the committee as I think an important balancing tool. And I don't even know how the mechanisms would work to get to the general fund refinance of all of that, but I would suggest, Ms. Bickle, you would know better than I.
So, Madam Chair, I will reach out some more to the governor's office and CDE, and clarify with them sort of what are some options, and I'll bring them back to you when we get a bill. I have been contemplating this, but I don't have a proposal.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to make sure, though, that the savings that we generate from this are attributed to the general fund, not the state ed fund, or any other place where these dollars might be coming from. That would be great. And one other just clarification is the thought that this is a one-time thing or an ongoing thing?
One-time.
Okay. Very good. And I... How much does that leave in the fund there, Ms. Bickle?
Well, for the best cash grants, you're currently looking at about $107 million. so you would be cutting that in half, I presume, for the next round, which would be the grants for 26-27. For the charter school facilities assistance right now, that's at about $42 million, so you would be cutting that approximately in half.
Senator Mobley. So I'm forgetful. Is this something we already talked about, or is this something new? because I thought we did already take some reduction to best in some other way. Capped.
Ms. Bickle. Last year you had a pretty large bill that capped total revenue to the best fund at $150 million. This year you had a quite small reduction of about $500,000 that had to do with indirect cost collections from the best fund and making sure that best contributed to indirect cost collections. And the State Board of Ed did a comeback on that small reduction. Okay.
And we already did that.
Yes.
And so this is not something we've talked about. Okay.
Just a balancing suggestion that is, I don't know, just as unpleasant as everything else, I think we keep talking about.
Senator Kirkmeyer. I'm just going to say I'm not really that supportive. I'm okay with trying to fish it out if you want to, but just off the top, I'm not really supportive of it, because Bess took a big cut last year. They had cuts before where they weren't able to get stuff done as well, and our school facilities, regardless of where they're at, need assistance. I'm willing to look at it, but I'm not necessarily on board.
Okay, Senator Mobley.
Well, I would like, we haven't figured out yet the whole capital budget, and so I would actually rather look at that before we, I mean, we can do it simultaneously, but the order of priorities for me would be to figure out what we're doing with capital construction and with the maintenance. Well, we can take that up next now if people are ready to talk about capital.
Sure.
Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Mobley just touched on something I know that would make me feel a little bit more comfortable on these big items. I guess I'm fine going to the legislative side of things or the drafting side of things, But I would prefer once we have them, let's say there's a half a dozen, then we come back and try to prioritize those because I didn't.
Yes, that is totally fine. I think this is a thing that will take some working out. And that is my recommendation that we try to go forward on drafting. And if, you know, somehow magically we figure out ways to do this balancing thing without having to cut VEST. But I just think it's an option we should have.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to go to draft on a bill that would accomplish what it is that we outlined. $50 million VEST, $20 million Charter, roughly in some sort of fair distribution.
Are there any objections? to just go to draft numbers still you know these are just maybe TBD but this is what I am ballparking all right are there any objections to that that passes on a vote of six to zero would you like to bring anything up while Ms. Bickle's here Rep Taggart
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms. Bickle. Last year, if you recall, we looked at financial aid on higher education. I think you gave us three charts, graduate schools, private schools, and I think district colleges, but I'm not sure. there were three of them, and I just can't remember all those three, and I wonder if you could bring those back. What's going through my mind is, in the case of private schools and the district colleges, right now we do cough at 50% of the value of what we do for our public institutions. and district colleges are public institutions. But if I recall, do they get full cost or 50%? Private schools, I know it's 50%.
Ms. Pickle. So private schools, right, there is a, some private schools get 50%, which they have to be part of an agreement. AND SO IT'S ONLY CERTAIN, I THINK MOSTLY NON-PROFIT, PRIVATE SCHOOLS THAT ARE PART OF THAT THAT DO THE COFFE PRIVATE STIPEND AND IT IS 50 FOR YOUR OTHER PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS private schools that are part of that that do the COF private stipend And it is 50 for your other public institutions They are not part of that. They are part of the local district colleges and the area technical colleges don't get COF, but they instead get grants really based on formula funding as well as based on financial aid. So they are part of formula distributions for both of those things. And the COF private stipend really works as financial aid in those private institutions.
Rep Tugger. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just hoping we can bring those charts that you prepared last year back and look at them again. And I'll just give you my rationale. I WANT TO LOOK AT THAT SITUATION LONG BEFORE I LOOK AT CUTTING ANYTHING MORE IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. SO I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT AGAIN AND SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING THERE THAT COULD HELP OFFSET ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING WITH OUR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.
So, Rep Taggart, I will work with Mr. Kim, who now has that higher ed assignment, so he can bring you, I think what you're probably thinking about are the financial aid distribution tables. And the one thing to just also note about those is that at this point, it is under the authority of the Commission on Higher Ed to allocate the total financial aid that you give out. And so you would have to think about do you want to change statute or do you just want to cut amounts and tell them, figure it out. But that would be sort of some of your options to think about.
I don't have anything specific in mind. I just think we should look at it because I'm so concerned about our funding of our public institutions right now.
Absolutely. I'll work with Mr. Kim on that. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Ms. Goodall. Okay. I think since the conversation just came up, maybe we should move to capital, which is in our binder from Wednesday. I can't remember which packet.
It's in packet 13. 13, yes.
Capital projects. And maybe we should start with capital construction before IT. Thank you. Do you want me to or do you want to All right I don't know where the committee is totally thinking. You know, we have hundreds of millions of dollars of a gap to close, and it has been submitted with a budget of hundreds of millions of one-time funding that I don't think is actually available for closure of our budget. So it is going to require very, very large cuts to a number of things, and I think capital construction is one of those things. Vice Chair Bridges, suggestions?
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. In conversations with the folks involved in this, I think, and just in talking with the committee and knowing the magnitude of the challenge we face this year, I think that we need to scale back on all of the construction projects, with the exception of the Clark building, as that has been waiting for a while. It is the last step of a multi-step process, and I think we even need to cut back on controlled maintenance level one. My understanding is if we only fund levels one, two, three, and four within controlled maintenance level one, that that saves us $70 million. Is that right?
Ms. Ewell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Andrea Ewell, JBC staff. Yes, Senator Bridges. So within controlled maintenance level one, it's all projects with scores of one to ten, and there's a bunch of, like, tied scores. So if you fund everything that had through a score of four, you would save $71.5 million compared to the full cost of the list, and you would be spending $38.6 on controlled maintenance. And that would be 18 projects.
Senator Kirkman. But were we fully funding tier one controlled maintenance?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, all of controlled maintenance level one was in the OSPB and CDC recommendations.
Senator Kirkmeyer. And at what percentage?
Is it the one and a half percent? Is it two percent?
You know what I'm talking about.
Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, are you referring to the architect's goal of funding 1% of current replacement value? And maintenance on our buildings, yeah. Yeah, so the just level one only, I think, was like 0.4% instead of the 1%. So it's, I mean, even all of level one was like well, well below the 1% recommendation. Yeah, the original level one recommendation was 0.37% compared to the 1% goal. So, yeah, doing like $39 million would be like 0.13% of the 1% goal.
What the rest of your deal Does it So Senator Kirkmaier So then we oh that I mean so we would draw the line after the Clark building Yeah.
Well, we would. Yes.
With this other cut of $71 million? Cutting control maintenance down $70 and doing nothing else on that list except for Clark. Again, because it's a continuation project, it's been on pause. If we pause it longer, I think costs start to mount. So essentially this is $100 million.
Well, I will tell you where I'm at for now, and then back to the idea of we start prioritizing. I'm willing to draw the line after the Clark building. I'm not so willing right now to get to .139% of our 1% goal for controlled maintenance level one. But I'm not saying no. I'm saying maybe we put both on there and let's see where we're at. So shall we make that? Let's make that motion for now. And if you find other cuts that total 70 million that we can agree to, then we'll come back to it. But for now, Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to draw the line after the Clark building. AND CONTROL MAKE SCORES OF FOUR. SO CONTROL THAT WOULD INCLUDE CONTROL MAINTENANCE BECAUSE NO, NO, NOT THE SCORES OF FOUR. NO, WE'RE GOING TO... YEAH, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT DOING THE WHOLE CONTROL MAINTENANCE. WE'RE GOING TO COUNT THIS FOR NOW, IS WHAT WE SAID. WHAT I HEARD, SO CORRECT ME. WHAT I HEARD FROM SENATOR KIRKMAYER IS THAT SHE DOES NOT SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH ELIMINATING 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 10 FROM THE CONTROL MAINTENANCE LIST. But are you okay moving forward for now, assuming we will do that, and then see if we can find another 70 somewhere else?
And then do I have to worry about trying to get a vote?
I mean, I can get out of it now anyways.
I mean, it's a transfer bill anyway, so this does work right?
Is it Ms. Guell? That's correct.
You do have to agree on the amount of general fund in that transfer bill to fund the list.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Then I move the Clark building and control maintenance up to score number four to go to draft on that change.
Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of six to zero.
Doesn't mean I'm not coming back to it.
Rep Taggart. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Without driving Ms. Ewell crazy, is it possible to get a summary of then what the projects that are 5s in a subtotal 6 and a subtotal 7 and so on and so forth? So we can move up.
If we need to make, if we have the knowledge to make a compromise. Yes.
Ms. Ewell has those numbers. Yes, that's why I'm bringing my computer in from now on.
I didn't hear what you said. I said that just edged her right over crazy.
Got it all here in the spreadsheet already. Did I just say join the crowd?
And I just want to know how we got to four, levels one through four, in the controlled maintenance tier one. I mean, we're not, I mean, at some point, like, for example, if it's Department of Corrections is five or six, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE NOT PUTTING LOCKS ON DOORS OR WE'RE NOT DOING THINGS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS THAT WE NEED TO DO OR SOME OTHER CRITICAL PLACE LIKE FORT LOGAN, I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW WE FIGURED OUT ONE through four. That's all. I'm not saying change it. I would just like to know where that came from.
Yeah, so it sounds like the committee members want to see what's above and below that line.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just add, the way we got through score four is, if your goal is to save around $70 million off the cost, that's where you would draw the line. Adding in five would, you'd have to, scores of five, you'd have to spend another $7.4 million. if you want to draw the line in the middle of a score level, I think there would need to be like some deliberation about how to do it because it's alphabetical, so you would want to look at like specifically maybe what the projects are.
I'm not looking to do that. I just want to make sure that the absolutely critical projects must-haves, like for Fort Lyons, I mean for some of our institutions and our facilities, that there are things you have to have or you get federal lawsuits. That's what I'm asking. That's why I didn't know how four made it. So if we see the list, then we can look at it.
Ms. Yule. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
Yes, so the scores are, you know, scores of one are the most critical. That's all ranked within controlled maintenance. I should note that there were a couple capital renewal projects on the regular part of the list. Those are ones with larger dollar amounts that they're not controlled maintenance, but they also have life safety components and the same life safety criteria to be as controlled maintenance. And so that is something to keep in mind that human services and DOC, those two projects were capital renewal. And those aren't directly scored against the controlled maintenance ones, though, because they're in a different category.
Okay. You do have a couple other capital items. Oh, the cash fund. You did not approve the cash list yet.
I believe you did approve the bill and were in agreement not to appropriate for the capital complex renovation project, but the rest of the cash table is on page six in your comeback packet. I believe Rep Taggart's questions about the DNR projects were answered, and I think that was the only, like, outstanding item on the cash list. Okay.
So do you want to approve the rest of the cash list?
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to approve the cash-funded list. Minus that.
Yeah, minus the capital complex renovation. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. And the next item is I think you made this decision the other day with your general fund exempt memo, but just to verify your discussion the other day, I think decided to let CDOT have that $500,000 from the general fund exempt account. So stick with that. And then the last thing is the capital construction head notes are in the back of the memo. There's nothing interesting to say there, but I just need you to approve those. Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. move long bill head notes for capital construction.
Are there any objections? Staff rec. That passes on a vote of 6-0. This is a long thing. All right. IT capital. One time. I'm bored. Okay, where are we going? IT. Right before capital construction Thank you CAPITOL CONSTRUCTION It was right before CAPITOL. Right before. Got it. There you go. All right. Mr. McClure, can you refresh me on the blue highlights
there on page three. Yes, Andrew McLear, JBC staff. The blue highlights are just the projects that were not prioritized in the governor's initial request and were added to the list by the joint technology committee. These were added to the list due to reductions in the school finance modernization project costs. So they reallocated some of these cost savings to these other projects.
Senator Kirkmeyer. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
So with regard to the question that I asked you about the other day about the SEP funds, did you find out any information on those in the Department of Public Health and Environment? Mr. McLear. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, yes. So these SEP funds were, the department doesn't have direct control over these funds. They're damage awards, basically, that the department just serves as a pass-through for. So the department doesn't actually hold any of those funds. in terms of this stationary sources, this stationary sources modernization project. I do note in this memo that the department has updated, updated staff on the balance of the community impact cash fund and has stated that there is sufficient balance in the cash fund to pay for this project. So I am, as part of my recommendation, recommending the transfer of these funds from the Community Impact Cash Fund to the Capital Construction Fund for this project.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
So is that the other thing that I sent you? Or where did the Community Impact Funds?
Mr. McClure.
Was that the other part that we were talking about? Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, I believe the discussion of the Community Impact Cash Fund as a potential fund source for this came up during the initial figure setting presentation for IT capital. The, that Volkswagen diesel, that was the other, the other thing I was referring to where the department is just serving as a pass through for this, this money that was awarded as part of litigation. But we can use those funds. Mr. Malker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, we cannot use those funds for this project. Those funds are specifically for the replacement of the marketed clean diesel for Volkswagen replacement, essentially. So for so-called clean buses, that kind of thing. So it's pretty limited to essentially mobile sources. So stationary sources would fall outside of the allowable use of those funds.
Does that change your mind on anything on the list No I was trying to figure out how we could fund other things here So that all Okay
Senator Mobley. Thank you, Madam Chair. The $905,000 general fund from the reimagining benefit management system. I know we talked about this before because I was hoping that we would actually redo rather than just reimagine, but we are.
You got to imagine it before you do it.
Do you though? Yeah, but it's a lot of money to reimagine.
It's always better plan.
No, they already imagined it and then they reimagine it. This should really be re-re-reimagining. Okay. I'm just wondering how this connects to the $3.5 million set aside around the county admin, centralized, decentralized, because I thought there was part of that is that we have to reimagine the benefit management system.
Yes, I think from the county's perspective, but the state's as well, I think everybody is on the same page to say that this is really crucial to everything else that we would be contemplating is reimagining CBMS.
Okay.
This is separate from that, but it is related. It's not part of that set aside. This is in addition to that set aside. Yes.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
Thank you Madam Chair. And so essentially this is CBMS and can we, because the benefit management system I know it will have to do with TANF but it also deals with SNAP. So can't we fund this out of the HMSA?
Mr. McClure, anything eligible there from HSMA?
Thank you Madam Chair.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
I am unsure if HSMA would be an allowable use for this. I can certainly follow up with our analysts for HSMA to find out if that would be, if we could use those funds to substitute for this general fund that they're requesting.
Okay, great.
I presume not the whole amount, but maybe some part of it. CBMS is pretty well intertwined with SNAP.
Okay.
And they're reimagining it because of the work.
Do people want to draw a line somewhere differently from where JTC has brought our recommendations? Mr. McClure?
I just wanted to flag one more thing for you in addition to that stationary sources modernization change that this interacts with OSPB comeback number 19 where they have switched the cash fund source for the, apologies, the records utilization upgrade. upgrade yeah it was HUTF and they are they are substituting two other cash funds for this instead the most cash fund and then the MSCF cash fund this has to do with them being over the statutory cap and so they they need to reduce the HUTF spending to go back under that statutory cap which is why they are swapping out these funds sources so it's still completely cash funded but it's just a different cash fund source. I just wanted to flag that all for you.
I don't know what you just said. We approved comeback number 19 yesterday. So how does that change what's on this list?
It doesn't change what's on the list, just the cash fund source.
So the cash fund source that,
in the list the JTC sent over to you it just substituting those HUTF dollars for this record or this yeah this record utilization upgrade with other cash funds within the department so I just wanted to identify that there's a slight difference in cash funds.
Thank you Madam Chair. I don't have a line per se but I know I circled this when I read this that the Department of Personnel's human resource information system were already funding at a significant level a new payroll system and the integration with the core system and adding people to make sure or running it parallel. I just question whether they should be tackling two very large systems at the same time, and whether this could, it's the first phase, whether this could pause for a year. So it's not a line. It's just a question on a particular project.
I don't know the answer to that.
My assumption is that they feel it's pretty important right now.
You want to fund IT? Mr. McClure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. To respond to Representative Taggart's comment, my understanding of this human resources information system is that the governor's office is required to ask for this by the WINS agreement. What does it do?
It's in here. No, it's not in here. I'm sorry. I thought it was in here. It was in a briefing book.
Thank you. Thank you. .
Did you read it? It's not shown up in the original request.
Vice Chair Bridges, do you have a...
I don't know. I'm not stepping out for that. It's not showing up in your original request. Yes, no? Madam Chair, given that we do need to fund the Human Resources Information System, and I think everything above that line is also projects we need to fund. I propose that we draw the line at project number six, but maintain the JTC rank in funding to six.
Senator Mobley.
I don't know. I mean, I think I heard that this thing at Fort Lewis was a really important thing that controls all the door locks for all the dorms, and so I appreciate the cost savings, but I just, I think I heard that was really an important thing to do for the safety of the students. Want to draw the line at 8?
Okay.
That's where it is drawn, isn't it? Well, no, the JTC added those three projects.
Oh.
And does it, may I ask?
Senator Kirkmeyer.
So what is a human resource information system? Before we're even drawing it within the line. Somebody needs to be able to tell us what it is. Yeah, but what exactly does it do?
Well, we already have. And we already have systems that do that. So why do we need this?
I don't think, I'm not sure that we do have systems that do that.
Mr. McClure?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, my understanding is that this is a right now the the state's human resources management is uh is segmented uh so each there there are departments agencies that have different resource human resources management systems and that they're not all integrated which as i understand it creates uh centralized problems in terms of trying to kind of collect or receive employee data across these systems. That's how they explained it.
Senator Kirkmeyer. So it's a system that came from the WINS agreement because they want to be able to collect data all across all systems, all of the departments, about the employees because the one we have they don't feel is good enough?
We don't have one, it sounds like. It sounds like each department has their own thing, And so there's no consistent human resources management, it sounds like.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Chair, which sounds like a pretty big problem if we're attempting to have consistency across the state.
Senator Kirkmeyer. Sounds like an issue that the union wants so they can get to employee data that much easier instead of having to go to each department to get it, which they can go and do.
So let's find out for sure what it is then.
How much data is accessible from a human resources system? I need to know more about it. I mean, somebody ought to be able to tell us what exactly it is and why they need it.
Okay.
But I'm okay with not including 9, 10, and 11. Are they part of the 8 million?
Mm-hmm. So they just added those in How come Well I not comfortable taking that off I comfortable drawing the line after 8
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. If we're going to draw it at 8, we should probably just bump down the next project. It's not going to change our budgeting very much. I know it will be very impactful for Otero.
What is that?
I propose we draw the line at 6, but if we're going to keep going, then we should go to 9.
Security.
Oh, security. I didn't know what that was.
So is the, are 10 and 11 included in the 8 million?
Yes. All of it's in the 8 million.
Mr. McClure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to note one more thing for the committee. That $8 million figure for the general fund cost is exclusive. this does not consider that there is a $2.8 million balance in the IT capital account. So whatever the total you decide on, the actual transfer of general fund will be $2.8 million less than that. So in that case, the entirety of this list is a little over $5.2 million. So it just seems relevant for you all.
You should have led with that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
but if we fund anything more than $2 million, we're spending money. So it's money that we spend or don't spend either way. The sunk cost fallacy is not one that I want to be applying to this particular list. It's not free money. It's still our money.
Okay.
So we really only budgeted $2 million for this? No, that's in the cash fund now. So we would need whatever we fund in excess of $2 million. $2.2 million. It's a general fund.
So I heard the vice chair suggest drawing the line at 9. Vice chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make it a motion. I move we draw the line at 9.
Are there any objections? Okay, well, are you objecting?
No, I'm flabbergasted and confused.
Well, I'm objecting because we still have number six in there.
Nobody can really tell me exactly what it is and why we need it.
Well, that vote passes on a vote of four to two with Taggart and Kirchmeier objecting. this is its own bill or it's within a larger transfer bill, a capital bill? Thank you, Madam Chair.
The IT, there will be a transfer, a single transfer bill for capital construction and IT capital that we will bring back for you. The reason I concerned is that I briefly gone through both the figure document and the briefing document and this particular IT request doesn show up in any of their priority requests
Which IT request?
The Human Resource Information System. So if it is that important, why didn't it show up on any document having to do with a prioritized request?
Well, it's in their IT request.
I'm not, I'll look there. You know, again, I just skimmed it in a short period of time. I'll look again, but I...
Mr. McClare, was this?
I don't know. It's a one of two project plus. I don't even know what that means.
Do you know where this would have shown up in our documents?
It would be in the IT capital figure setting document on page three.
Well, I don't know what that vote means for moving forward, but...
Yeah, thank you.
Maybe we can just at least pull up the information from the, I think I'm having trouble finding my documents, so maybe just after lunch we can just revisit what the request was and what this actually does, because I don't think this is just some data collection mechanism for the union. I think this is a legitimate IT capital request and that they need to modernize their human resources. of systems. And so we'll just get the information, and I think that then hopefully we can clear
this up. All right. So people can take the lunch hour to mull that over. In the meantime, the Joint Budget Committee will stand in recess. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to try for a few more comebacks right now. And Mr. Kim is here, so I think that means we would start with Comeback 53. Is that what you're expecting?
I'm not looking at the numbers.
Oh, 33.
Sorry.
Come back 33, which is on page...
79.
Amazing. Oh, yeah. Okay. Okay. I really appreciate what you, Mr. Kim, and Mr. Brackey have tried to do here. I do think that the true-ups at supplementals, I really fear what that ultimately looks like. What I think that, but I think we need to do this comeback here. I just, I guess I would reiterate, I don't, I guess I don't want to break it in order to get the information. I would like us to be able to have the, for you to have the transparency you need to get the information that you need in order to do this clearly. I think I was on.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move OSBB Comeback 33, DPA statewide total comp.
Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5 to 0, with Kirkmeyer excused.
We didn't. I don't think so. We lost $8 million, which we may have had to true up during supplementals anyway. We trued up the health, life, and dental and the ULAD reductions.
All right. What other numbers do you have? 53.
53.
I thought I crossed that out, though.
Sorry.
Director Harper, did you assume this in the technical list? Mr. Kim, on comeback number 53, do we have any action we need to take at this time?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Alfredo Kim, JBC staff. On item number 53, I wasn't even aware of this because this was included under economic development and international trade. However, this general fund is initiated in Oedit. It is reappropriated in higher ed and I have already made this equivalent true up through a technical So yes the reappropriated funds amount is correct through a technical adjustment Okay So we need to take no action for that to be true Perfect Thank you Thank you.
All right. I'm not bringing that back. Comeback number 24 is on page, the bottom of page 57. And what we were being asked for is to make this term limited instead of one time, because their request was that it might take some time to sort this out. I don't know if you feel the same way, Mr. Bracke. Madam Chair, I talked to the department afterwards.
There's nothing you need to do here. they may come forward with a budget request next year based on what they think they need in the future but one time is fine. Okay great.
All right. Ms. Yule, what did we ask you to come back here for? Which number?
Oh, school finance.
I think. No?
She wanted it anyway.
Yes. We had talked about, we had already approved a $50 million general fund increase to the K-12 school funding formula.
And I think we should consider removing that and reflecting it instead as state ed fund dollars. and then that's how we would reflect it in the long bill and any changes to formula or any consequences of that can be made in the School Finance Act.
Vice Chair, Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'm fine with that, although I think we're all worried about the state of that, but we did reimburse it by $31 million, and we also stopped the $11 million flowing of funds from SEF to healthy school meals this year. So that gets it pretty close. But the question I have that I'm unclear of is, are we continuing the phase-in this next year and going to 30% or are we pausing it to the present level of 15 Because I a little unclear where we are on that Vice Chair Bridges
Thank you, Madam Chair. My understanding is that that decision will be made in the School Finance Act. I think we're setting the total dollar amount, how that's used, where it goes, what's done with it, up to School Finance Act. Okay.
Okay. Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Is the move to undo? What's the move?
Ms. Ewell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think you can undo your former motion that increased the state share by $50 million general fund and say it will be paid by the state ed fund instead.
I move to return $50 million that was dedicated to K-12 from the general fund and instead will be made up for in the state ed fund.
Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Kirkmeyer excused. Was it just to eliminate the $50 million transfer, whatever it is? You know what we're doing. Is that in the legislature? Umm… On which? Well... I don't know what that is. I have too many papers. That's from March 10th. I have no idea. I think we could talk about this youth mental health call, but I think it's going to possibly entail a little... I don't know what Barb's going to think about it. Can I grab it? We can talk about it if you want to bring it up. Oh, CDE. Yes, I did want that. I did want it in. I forgot. It is 52. Do you have your CDE come back packet? Okay. In CDE, not OSBB, CDE's comeback packet on page 13, that is their comeback number five, they are asking for roll forward funding so that, and an RFI, SO THAT THEY ARE BETTER ABLE TO GATHER INFORMATION ON ENROLLMENT TRENDS RELATED TO SINGLE DISTRICT AND MULTI-DISTRICT ONLINE SCHOOLS, THAT WE ARE LACKING IN INFORMATION. MS. BICKELE, ANY FEEDBACK HERE?
IT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO DO. MADAM CHAIR, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA FOR SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DUG INTO. THE ONE THING I WANTED TO NOTE IS ON PAGE 15. the department stated that it doesn't currently have statutory authority to require these districts or online providers to submit the necessary information. So I guess I would suggest if we want something good out of this, I would also suggest a bill draft. I think you can do, I think it's fine to do in the long bill, the roll forward, and maybe the RFI, but maybe in your gas giants package we could also have whatever statutory change is necessary so that they can get better quality information.
That sounds good to me. Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move not only Department Comeback No. 5 RFI roll forward funding, but also move to draft legislation that I believe can run after the long bill, so gas giant style, to make sure that everything actually works.
Okay. All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5 to 0. Oh, with Kirkmeyer excused. Do I have more? Okay. . But bills, I don't feel we can do yet. Exactly. I don't know what this is. Well, I don't know. Do you think we can... Wait, this is yours? Oh, yeah, because you have... Yeah. Thank you. All right. All right. We have been made aware that there are probably an additional $11.4 million in the ARPA. I think, I believe it's the refinance discretionary account. The refinance discretionary account that we should, that are not being utilized, and we should take and sweep to the general fund. So, unless anybody wants to just leave it sitting there.
VICE CHAIR BRIDGESS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MOVE TO SWEET ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS THAT PASSES ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 0 WITH KIRKMAYER EXCUSED Are there any objections That passes on a vote of 5 with Kirkmeyer excused And Madam Chair just to clarify we be adding this to the ARPA bill
Yes, please. Bless you. I still think we should sweep the whole thing alone. Do we talk about it? Okay. Maybe if we could also talk about OSPB Comeback No. 52. I know we don't have all six people here, and maybe there is a question of needing a bill for this, but at least perhaps we can begin a discussion of what it would be. What page is that? Page 124 of OSDB Comebacks.
Senator Amabile. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think that I would like to fund this program, and I see that however we're doing it now is maybe not allowed, but I just wonder if there are some other ideas around how we could fund this program so we can just keep it going, live to fight another day, so to speak. And then what we're being told is that we could direct funding. So originally it was flagged we can't fund this directly out of the lieutenant governor's office, but that funding could actually be directed to the BHA as we have done with MTCF funds in years past. and then they could have an MOU with the Lieutenant Governor's Office Service Colorado or whatever that program is. But Ms. Pope, do you have thoughts on that that would help guide us?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Emily Pope, JBC staff. So I think the guidance that you got from legal services is that the statute for the Lieutenant Governor is unclear. So putting money to the lieutenant governor through the BHA does not change the fact that the lieutenant governor's authority is unclear. It, in my opinion, makes it much less clear. And it's true that it seems like they've been operating this through an MOU as far as I understand as of today. But there is a statute that specifically currently outlines that the BHA is receiving money and that money shall go to the lieutenant governor for this purpose. So assuming that you would want to be very clear about your intention for how a new marijuana tax cash fund obligation would operate, I would recommend that you would do a bill to do that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I would like to draft a bill that will do that. I don't know what the, if we just had it go, get funded out of the marijuana cash tax fund and then had the BHA run the program? Is that or does it have to be run by the lieutenant governor's office? I was kind of unclear on that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My understanding again being very new to it is that it the is that the American Corp program is run by the lieutenant gov so that how it ended up there if you running a bill you can certainly choose who in charge of it and exactly how the program operates and that's i think why we're encouraging you to run a bill is to set some clarification around all of those things okay so thank you madam chair is it cleaner to just have
the bha administer it do we are we worried that we run into extra costs that way or does the Does the Lieutenant Governor's Office do it for no cost?
I think, again, my understanding is that there hasn't been state funds for this program, so it's an entirely new obligation. And it's always a policy decision for you all if you want something to be in the BHA or not. I think it makes sense to put it there, but we can explore that as part of the bid-drawing process.
Okay. But the money for it will come out of the Marijuana Cash Tax Fund.
Ms. Pope. You can also choose the fund source, but it seems like it would be general fund or marijuana tax cash fund, and it would be a new obligation for either of those fund sources.
And up until now, where has the money been coming from? I just don't remember what we do.
Vice Chair Bridges? Oh. I believe it's been a combination of federal funds, philanthropic funds, and maybe there's a third bucket in there. I'm forgetting. ARPA funds is the third bucket. Okay.
Senator Korkmeyer. And then typically with AmeriCorps, there's a match from like wherever they're doing different things at or working together. So all of those things. That's usually where the funding came from. And AmeriCorps has been in the lieutenant governor's office, I know for certain since 2001, maybe longer, but I know for certain since that time. So do people have an, I mean, first of all, is there support for us funding this so it can live on one way or another? And will it still be able to draw federal funds or is that over?
Rep. Taggart? My concern, if I'm reading the write-up correctly, though, is it isn't just coming from the marijuana tax cash fund. It's bumping the early literacy program, so it has somewhat of a domino effect. So I think we have to think about both of those, if I'm understanding this correctly.
Well, because of your motion with the MTCF, we sort of changed the calculation of funds there, and so we're trying to hit the reserve, the necessary number to try and get closer to LCS's forecast than OSPPs, but with the elimination of the local share, if you will. I think that left us maybe room of like a million dollars or so to work with. Okay.
Senator Kirkmeyer. I think it's a little bit more than that. But I thought we had talked about using those funds to restore the funding to the SPIRT, SBIRT.
We did. Well, what would everyone rather do?
Senator Mobley? Well, I guess I just don't... I'm not sure. I'm happy to split the split if we have $1.5 million, which is what I think we had to split that between the two programs but I have no idea if this AmeriCorps thing works without the full funding Like did we decide on that
No, we didn't make any motions. Okay. It's just what we were talking about. Yeah. Okay. I GUESS JUST SO EVERYONE IS CLEAR ON WHAT OPTIONS THERE ARE, MS. POPE, THOUGH THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T THINK WE NEED LEGISLATION, YOUR ADVICE WOULD BE YOU SHOULD CLARIFY THIS IN STATUTE IF YOU WANTED TO GO THROUGH THE BHA REGARDLESS.
CORRECT. I WOULD ACTUALLY SAY I WOULD EVEN MORE STRONGLY RECOMMEND LEGISLATION FOR THE BHA OPTION THAN LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S OPTION.
OK. But if we were changing statute, could we not just change statute to send the money to the lieutenant governor's office? In that case, do they need an MOU? Was the BHA doing anything before? I mean, specific to this. Specific to this.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure whether they need an MOU if you do legislation or not. I know the BHA has interagency agreements with almost every department to oversee their behavioral health programs. Maybe you prefer that.
Senator Mobley. I mean, I guess, is there appetite to support this program in one way or another? Maybe we could figure that out first before we... I don't see an existing program. My brief encounter and visit with the program was pretty positive, actually. And I think that the evidence that they put forward is compelling to me. So I'm open to trying to figure out a way to do this if it's possible, but I'm not wedded to anything in particular.
Senator Imable? Well, there is a bill that I believe I'm on, but we haven't made it very far that would tax or put a fee on social media and have them pay for this. But I don't think we're going to get that off the ground this year. I don't know. I hate to say that. They'll probably start texting me. We might. And so I'd hate to see the thing just go away because we couldn't figure that piece out and then have to restart next year. So if people are supportive and if we have enough money in the marijuana cash tax fund to support it, maybe we could put $750 million into this and $750 million into the SBIRT.
Well, I think we would need-
I mean, $750,000. Sorry, I'm delirious. Oh, the zeros just went up. Yeah. This program is really important. It's going to take $750 million. Do you know if that is workable?
I don't know.
Ms. Pope, do you have an opinion on that?
No, because nobody knows.
Could we draft a bill that does this, puts this in BHA and funds it at that amount? It takes the money from the marijuana cash tax fund. And also, since we hadn't decided on it yet, fund the SBIRT at an additional, or, you know, I forget exactly what the number was we'd already put into that.
Well, I'm not sure I want to on the fly make allocations with the MTCF right now because we had also talked about there was a very was miss pope can you tell us what in some total happened with tony gramsis because i think there were different interactions in different
departments yes thank you madam chair i have wanted to mention that you did say during my figure setting presentation that you wanted to revisit tony gramsis in particular if you had additional marijuana money left over. Off the top of my head I believe you did a $200,000 MTCF reduction to Tony Grampsis and I'm just trying to recall if there was a general fund reduction as well I believe there was. So personally looking at the budgets I'm responsible for I think I would recommend taking back that Tony Gramsis reduction before SBIRT, but certainly the committee can do whatever you please. And the SBIRT reduction was $500,000 total, so you would not need the $750,000 for that.
Well, maybe we should pause on a request for a bill if we wanted to find out what could they do with $750,000. Okay.
I was thinking we could just get the bill drafted and then we could adjust the amounts once we...
Rob Taggart.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'm concerned about two things. I'm like yourself. I'm uncomfortable doing this on the fly, especially when one of the requests was to take it from early literacy. I'm not comfortable with taking it from early literacy. And secondly, to move it, does that put our investment at risk if it's being in some way, shape, enhanced by AmeriCorps, given the fact that AmeriCorps has been working with the lieutenant governor's office for a long time? There's a lot of moving parts here that make me a little anxious.
Okay. Okay.
Senator Amobley. I'm so sorry. I'm a little bit tired today. Did we finish balancing, did we sign off on the marijuana cash tax fund or is that still an open item that we haven't quite? I think we could be finished if we wanted to be.
But we haven't yet. Is that right? We can go back. there was maybe a million dollars left if we wanted to reallocate. I mean that, I think
that's where we all landed. Yeah, Senator Kirkemeyer. So after, I believe what happened was we did agree to the reduction to local government, Representative Tiger, former mayor of Frank Gertrude. It's okay. It's okay. Anyway, we had agreed that we would be just a local government chair to make sure that we were meeting our reserve requirement and that it left about a million dollars and we had talked about it. So that part we agreed to. And we talked about that to restore the cuts to birth that the IRT Because we had cut another this year and we had cut last year
That's what we had tentatively agreed to, but I don't think we actually wore that. Okay, so this comeback, this OSPB comeback is just to take the money out of general fund. No, it's to take the money from this literacy program. It's also funded with the marijuana cash tax fund. And you don't want to do that. What's the balance in that literacy fund?
Director Harper, would you like to weigh in? Thanks, Madam Chair. We'll need...
That was just long enough.
Amanda Mikkel, JBC staff, that literacy fund actually no longer exists. You have eliminated it through a bill that you carried with your supplemental package. So Early Lit is now being supported by a combination of $34 million from the state ed fund. And it's a, I think we're at about $4.5 million from marijuana tax cash funds for grants is how much is left. You reduced that figure a little bit. I'm going to say that's $700,000 just in order to stay at your $34 million from state ed fund. I believe my suggestion at the time was you decide what to do with that mental health program sort of separately.
Okay. So early, thank you. So early lit is being funded and is now, right now getting, did you say 4 million out of the marijuana cash tax fund?
Yeah, a little more than that, between 4 and 5.
And so I guess the proposal is to say, could we take 1.5 million from that and not allocate it to that, which already gets this other 34 million, and put it towards this youth corps. Okay. Does that sound... And then we still can do the other balancing for... Say that again. Take what? Take 1.5 million out of the 4 million that is currently going to this literacy grant program out of the marijuana cash tax fund and put it towards this program? I don't want to do that. I was thinking we were talking about the million dollars, maybe 1.5. That would put us maybe slightly under the LCS reserve. Well, no, it wouldn't because we already are, we've already allocated 4 million to this. So you've got the $34 million from the state ed fund plus this amount, I'm sorry I don't have it in front of me, that is from marijuana tax cash fund. And you've already, you know, that number is already lower. It's almost on the $700,000 lower than it was before. And so the question is, and so you could choose to take it down further. IT WOULD HAVE MEAN LESS MONEY FOR EARLY LITERACY GRANTS AND I BELIEVE WHAT I HEARD IS the contention is that the grants are what is maybe being productive and helpful less so the direct allocation on early literacy.
Ms. Bickle? I would agree that at least there is evidence that the grants make a difference, the per pupil distribution, it's less clear. I mean, so you could move some money around, I imagine, and conceivably do a reduction there.
I guess the question is, where do you stand generally with your marijuana tax cash funds? Because you've also done some other things, right, like reduced behavioral health care professional matching grant program by $3 million, which was not part of the original submitted plan. So the $34 million, though, that's the direct allocation, is that what you're saying? we could maybe move money from that?
You can, within, you're required to make $34 million in appropriations from state ed fund for early literacy, and there's several different components to that. The grants program gets some of that money, but also gets the marijuana tax cash fund money. So, you know, there might be some potential to essentially move some money around if you wanted to.
All right. Well, maybe I should just take this offline and you and I can talk and come back with an actual proposal. Sorry about that. Okay.
If I can just clarify one thing about SBIRT based on what Senator Kirkmeyer said, because there continues to be confusion about whether the cuts you've taken have been duplicative and how much is left for SBIRT. There's a million dollars right now for SBIRT, so you cut it down from 1.5 to 1 million, and some folks remain confused about whether you've eliminated it or gone deeper than a million. You're sitting out a million right now, just to be clear.
All right, Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. How much did we cut it last year? You did not cut it last year. During the supplement, sorry, I was thinking figure-setting last year, Mr. Kurtz recommended eliminating it, and you didn't take that. During supplementals, you cut it by $500,000 for the current year. And then during figure setting, you just continued that action for an ongoing basis. So it wasn't another $500,000 on top of that. It's just $500,000. So you're $1 million right now.
Okay. All right. So perhaps we'll circle back. Okay. Thanks. Did we want to circle back on IT capital or we're not ready for that yet? Okay.
And do we have bills to look at? Director Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair. You have bills that are tabled that we have drafts of. There's options there. I have a draft of the inflation rate calculation bill that I can print quickly, the calendar year 2025 inflation calculation. And beyond that, I have not received, I have not asked for an update on what bills came in over the lunch hour.
Okay Well maybe if we could look at that bill that you have Are we ready to circle back to the HSMA bill Senator Krueckmeyer We don't have to, in the HSMA bill, we don't necessarily have to determine how to utilize the fund balance that's left over, right, from the, you know, after the whole waterfall of expenditures. Okay, yeah, we can go back to that bill. And then still have the discussion later about how we can use those other funds would be great. Okay. And then we also have severance tax. Yes. Do you want to wait on the bills and just jump into severance tax? I mean, I think we're printing the inflation calculation bill now.
What Ms. Pickle and I were discussing is which HSMA bill you were referring to. We had one drafted and ready to go, and then we paused on introduction. I actually don't even remember if we approved it and assigned sponsors or if we didn't get that far. So, Madam Chair, you have, you just didn't take action on it because you thought you might want to add some stuff to it. There was another bill, though, that you actually moved ahead with yesterday, which could have been a different vehicle for changes. In any case, I don't have copies of that one, but I can make copies for you again of the one, the state ed fund HSMA transfer bill. It sounded like everybody was okay with that. it was just that question of whether there was anything you wanted to add to it. And I don't know if there is.
Well, Senator Kirkmire, my suggestion was, I'll just say that from my perspective, what I would prefer not to do is utilize those funds for anything other than our enormous SNAP liability, but that you had thought perhaps some CBMS dollars could come out of there, which we thought we could either address potentially in this county bill that we are working on that is related to social safety net programs and county admin. And so there's that option. There's also the option of looking at what is happening within the IT capital. bill related to CBMS, reimagining CBMS. So I don't know if there were other things.
Ms. Bickle. So Mr. McClure did ask me about, I think you had some discussion this morning about CBMS improvements and whether you could use SNAP for that. And I would think so, and I would think you could do that under current law as part of SNAP administration as long as sort of the funding sources are laid out clearly. that's an increase, not a refinance in expenditures, and it's related to SNAP administration. So he was going to talk with the department more about specific numbers, but, I mean, I think that is a use that you don't need a statutory change for. And there's presumably, there may be some other uses that are supplement, not supplant, and are designed to address things like the error rate that you could certainly spend those monies on without any change in law.
Okay. Well, then I think may...
Rep Taggart. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I was not thinking that these dollars would go, as Senator Kirkmeyer had raised, to the reimagining of CBMS, which is a total replacement for CBMS. I was more thinking it was going to go to the programming update that was necessary in today's world in terms of the six-month criteria from H.R. 1 along with all the eligibility types of issues. So I was more thinking that it would go to that additional cost, and I'd forgotten what that was, but it was not small. I wanted to say it was $10 or $12 million or something. Maybe I was wrong.
But I wasn't thinking that it was going to go to the reimagining side. Well, I think maybe I'm going to make a suggestion that we stand in a brief recess while we gather maybe some bills and things, and that we will reconvene. Okay.
Senator Kirk, Mary? Yeah, that's fine. I just want to say that I actually went back and looked through the bill, and it says that beginning July 1, 2026, any of the funds after what I'm just going to call the waterfall usage, the tiering or whatever, beginning July 1, 2026, implementing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. So it's very broad. The supplanting is only in the first year. As of July 1, 2025, you can't supplant there anything that's already been. So that's what it says in the next section. So it just says for the following purposes. It can be used for that purpose. So I know that some of this would not, it would be one-time kind of stuff, but I think it also helps us with our budget stuff. There's the $36 million or so that would be like the gap funding. But in 26-27, starting on July 1, right? Yeah, starting on July 1, there is still about, from when I was looking through the long bill stuff, that another $34 million that I think we could switch out using instead of general fund that we could switch out. I think that was all general fund. I have to go back and remember because I was looking at this like at 1 o'clock this morning. But I think there are more dollars there that we could switch out. And then I do know that there was supposed to be some improvements being made to the CBMS system to help with the workload and the work numbers and things of that nature as it relates to staff as well with the eligibility. And I don't know exactly what those costs are. And then I think, I don't know if we've already looked at, I think we did with those legacy food programs, already looked at switching out the stuff. I don't know if you looked at the ones. That's the bill we did yesterday? Yes. I don't, did that cover all the ones in the Department of Human Services? Because there are some other food nutrition programs that are in the Department of Human Services. And we also put about $3 million or so into the food banks. And, you know, we could also even kind of beef that up for one year if we wanted to. Or I think we could also replace, refinance the $7 million that we did because of the shutdown. because it ended up being general fund money that went to the food banks back in November. I don know why we couldn replace that because that wasn part of the that wasn money that was actually went to SNAP that was programmed I wonder if these would require statutory changes to make something allowable because I would read it as like the healthy school meals for all, like school lunch program is one thing, SNAP is another thing. These other programs are other programs. Madam Chair, yes. I mean, I spoke at some length with legal services, and I would say they have significant concerns about trying to greatly broaden even to some of these, you know, because it also occurred to me, Senator Kirkmeyer, oh, well, maybe we can do some of the, like, food pantry grant programs because, you know, you have used that as sort of a replacement for SNAP. But if you look at the language adopted by the voters, it speaks pretty directly to SNAP, and legal services has pretty significant concerns about trying to go significantly beyond where the voters were approving. And I think they also, my understanding is that the supplement and not supplant thing, I don't know that they'd say, oh, well, you can do anything after July 1st. I think they'd say, you know, the idea is still to do things that are more and not just replace money that you are already appropriating for something. Obviously, these things become murky over time, but they definitely had some concerns. Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. but the $7 million that we allocated in late October or first part of November, we did that directly to help the SNAP situation because they could not use the federal card. So for all practical purposes, while it went through our food banks, it was to replace SNAP for a short period of time. So I would think legal would be okay with that because that was directly to help the SNAP situation. Rep Taggart, I did raise that with legal services, and they noted, one, that the language that was adopted by the voters said effective July 1st, 2026, so this would be before July 1st, 2026. There we go. You can take a few minutes. Mr. Lively. Thank you. Mr. Lively. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Pierce Lively, Office of Legislative Legal Services. Thank you, Representative Taggart. To your question, when discussing this with Ms. Bickle the other day, I raised a couple of issues. the first of which is the language has changed in MM to allow the expanded tax revenue to be spent on SNAP. That only allowed for that money to be spent on SNAP beginning July 1, 2026. Also, it explicitly said for implementation of SNAP. So, you know, it is obviously this is statutory and the General Assembly could run a bill. the risk in doing so is that the voters approved this tax increase with the expectation that the money be spent on these specific purposes And so the concern would be that the measure was specific and the blue book was specific and the title was specific the ballot title that is and this would be going beyond those and so therefore would raise some risk
Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Lively. The question then would become, what about LL? Thank you. Mr. Lively.
Thank you, Madam. Chair, Representative Taggart, that's an interesting question. So LL, as you may recall, related actually to the state's use of Proposition FF money. Proposition FF money did not contemplate SNAP at all. Proposition FF money was limited purely to the Healthy School Meals for All program, inclusive of the meals and the various programs. So that is part of the problem as well with an expenditure that came that early in time, is that we were, at that point, it would have been FF. we still would have been in the land of FF, if you will.
Okay. Any more questions for Mr. Lively? Yeah, I'll just talk to him offline. Okay. All right. We will stand in a brief recess. Thank you. All right. Greg came over for the inflation thing, and I was like, I know this conversation. We had it on the phone yesterday. Isn't it good? We had it all right. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you.
THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK TO ORDER AFTER OUR BRIEF RECESS. WE WILL START WITH AN ITEM THAT WAS BROUGHT UP YESTERDAY BY SENATOR KIRKMAYER ABOUT THE DECARB CREDIT FUNDING AND HOW WE MIGHT, NO? THAT'S NOT YOU? WHAT WAS I POINTING AT? THE DSF. THE DISABILITY SUPPORT FUND. YEAH, THIS ONE. DID WE THINK THAT THAT WAS OKAY? YEAH. ARE WE SURE? UH-HUH. Okay, not you. Okay. Okay. Okay, Mr. Rickman.
Thank you, Mr. Rickman.
We had talked before, and I can't find it on the list. It's somewhere here in our comebacks. Number 51, I think. Yes. Thank you. Wow. That's how good he is. This guy. He knows the number. It's the only one I know. There's a law book in front of me. Are you about to tell us we can't do this? THE LAW BOOK ISN'T USUALLY GOOD. PEARCE GETS THE LAW BOOK WHEN THINGS AREN'T OKAY. SO, MR. RICKMAN, IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE OSPB COMEBACK FOR THIS INSTEAD OF WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE THIS WORK? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
SAM RICKMAN, JOIN BUDGET COMMITTEE STAFF. I THINK MS. BAIEDDIE IS ON HER WAY AS WELL, WHO IS THE BILL DRAFTER FOR THIS. But there's basically two options for this. You could run this as one.
All right, so you want Ms. Bayan to explain how we would effectuate the comeback?
It's number 51. So there's a $30 million transfer that would happen, a statutorily set transfer from a bill in 2019. We approved a bill to end that transfer to the housing. It's not over there. A fund in DOLA related to housing. The administration came back and said, actually, that would be okay, except could you please not divert $2.2 million of that one-time transfer to ensure that we are supporting emergency housing vouchers. So if we would like to do that, what do we need to do?
Ms. Baetti.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Rebecca Baetti with the Office of Legislative Legal Services. you could run a standalone bill that does I think we're talking about the 2.2 and then also the other portion of that 30 million yes yes to the general fund yes yes so you could run a standalone bill that does all of those things in or you could do the 2.2 kind of changing that transfer and clarifying how that interacts with the required statutory transfer on the 30th. That would happen on June 30th, 2026. And then put the...
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. It seems like overly complicated to, like, take a transfer and then redirect some, but not others, when we already have something going to just essentially move that transfer entirely into the general fund. So could we instead just keep that on the track it's on, and then from the general fund move 2.2 over into that other fund? Ms. Beahedi.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR. YES, ALTHOUGH YOU COULDN'T DO BOTH OF THOSE THINGS IN THE LARGE TRANSFERS BILL BECAUSE ONE OF THEM GOES THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. YEAH. WE COULD JUST APPROPRIATE IN THE LONG BILL $2.2 MILLION TO DOLA. YES?
MS. BADDY?
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. For that, I would have to think about. Also, if this statutory transfer is going to happen, the one that's already kind of set out for June 30, 2026, and you would like to change that, you will need legislative action to do that. That can or can't happen in the transfer. It cannot happen in the transfer bill.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we need legislation to cancel the existing law that transfers $30 million from UPTF to HDGF. I think we approved drafting on that. So we have that bill. Within that bill, which I think has a tight title on this, correct, that's not in the transfers bill, right? It's its own bill.
Yes. Yes. Great.
It's its own bill. So within that bill could we instead of in that bill just transferring the full 30 million into the general fund transfer roughly like 28 point 27 point eight yeah 27 point eight into the general fund and 2 into the HDGF for the purpose of emergency housing vouchers
I see nodding yes. Yes, thank you. Yes, I'm sorry.
I should have clarified. When I said like a standalone bill, that's exactly what I was talking about. It's just doing both of those things. Great. Yes, exactly. Yep.
Okay. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Chair. I move to modify the existing standalone bill to include a $2.2 million redirect from UPTF to HDGF for emergency housing vouchers, with the remainder to come to the general fund. Are there any objections?
That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Kirkmeyer excused. Okay, thanks. Do you want to keep that? Recognize 42. I'll give you another one. What? 42. You want to do it or you don't? No, we don't. Let's do it. Yeah.
All right, Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. There is a bill making its way through the legislature that I have high confidence will pass. It reclassifies aviation fuel taxes as taper exempt, and I believe that we should recognize that reclassification here in the long bill. And so I move to recognize $30 million from the reclassification in Senate Bill 26042 in the long bill.
Director Harper.
For purposes of balancing. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Vice Chair, just as an update, I think there had been some uncertainty about the fiscal note for that particular bill. And based on amendments in committee, the change in the bill at this point, and we fortunately have entirely correct the right people in the room, the fiscal note is actually changing that estimate to a $61 million. I think for purposes of our balancing and uncertainty about where it is headed, we feel confident to balance to $30 million.
Works for me. The portion that applies to aviation fuel taxes and not the HUTF piece. There are other things that were added in, and then now there's coming out. So, 30. No, I just wanted to make sure that the information was available.
Rep Taggart.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm in agreement. I certainly got from my airport how critical this is. What are we reclassifying it to? Collections for another government. That they're not state. We're just a pass-through. We're just a pass-through. Okay. I was a little concerned when it first came to me that folks were going to set up an enterprise and went, oh, no, pass through. Okay.
All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5 to 0 with Kirkmeyer excused. Okay. And Ms. Pope.
Yeah. We are Vice Chair Bridges Thank you Madam Chair I think you right They not going to open Fort Logan this year and we should just assume the savings and then give them a supplemental if some miracle occurs and this place actually opens. Only three years late. Two years late?
Ms. Pope, that sounds safe. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I think to clarify, maybe for anyone listening, We're referring to the youth psychiatric unit at Fort Logan that is under construction and not yet, we'll say, not expected to be operational in fiscal year 26-27. It is a fantastic example of the sunk cost fallacy.
I move to assume the Fort Logan youth psych unit will not open until FY27-28 instead of their theoretical date of April 27. I believe that results in a roughly $4 million savings.
Three. Ms. Pope? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. It's $3.3 million general funds.
Great.
Vice Chair Bridges. Is that an appropriation or a transfer? It's an appropriation. So we save on the reserve as well.
Great. Thank you. All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5 to 0, with Kirkmeyer excused. All right. Unless there are any further staff comebacks that you want us to take a look at?
Madam Chair, not that I'm aware of. If you wanted decarbonization, I heard that come up.
Okay, hold on that one as well. Okay, we'll hold off. So no staff comebacks is what I hear. Let me...
Yeah. Yeah, let's do it. Yeah, let's do that.
Decarbonization. Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yesterday, two days ago, what is time anymore? I can't keep track. We had a conversation about decarbonization and a fund that we took a small amount of money out of because they plan to exist for several more years, and they need funding for several more years, but with the funds that we left them, they could exist for several more years. I think the idea here is that we would sweep the entirety of that cash fund, but then provide them with a $1 million a year annual appropriation. And I move to draft along those lines. Any objections?
Should we? Well, okay. Mr. McClure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Andrew McClure, JBC staff. Mr. Vice Chair, I just wanted to clarify the information I've gotten from the department or from the office is that that ongoing general fund appropriation would be $1.2 million and that your that the transfer estimate would be an additional 9.5. So that's in addition to the 6.1 you've already approved.
That sounds right.
Vice Chair, Bruce.
Over how many years?
Mr. McClure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That would be through FY3334.
Thank you Madam Chair If we were to sweep that fund would we need to essentially we get 9 but we have to appropriate 1 this year Correct So that we actually or if we sweep the 9 would the 1 still be left in the fund so that we don actually start the appropriation until next fiscal year
Mr. McClure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Vice Chair. The information I have received is that if you all were to repeal the fund at the end of FY 26-27, that the general fund appropriation would not be necessary until FY 28-29.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think we can put the sweeping of that fund into the transfer bill, but then do we need to do anything to create that annual appropriation beginning next fiscal year? Is that just something that you'll bring up to the budget committee next year or what's the process from here?
Mr. McClure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Vice Chair, that would show up in the budget request as an annualization of this bill.
Great. Then move to sweep.
Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of five to zero with Kirkmeyer excused. Okay. Ms. Kanagaraja, if you want to come back and ... I think if maybe is helpful to talk through numbers in the disability support fund and you know we had some options and maybe a difference of opinion about what to do there. And I know, I know, is this in our comeback packet for people to be able to reference? I think it was OSP, OSPB comeback number 11. Okay. Okay. That number might be wrong. I think that's correct. Yes. OSPB comeback number 11. So I think what we would appreciate clarity on is what we would be talking about if I think the intent of the committee since we are basically not doing capital construction this year, not to do the West Hall project without funding. And I understand that there is a lot of concern, maybe both from the disability community and the administration, on doing the refinance of the Centers for Independent Living. So another option would be to do a sweep to the general fund. So can you maybe walk through what that actually looks like? What are the numbers we're working with there? Yeah.
Phoebe, kindergarten, JBC staff. I think what the governor's office has pivoted their proposal to is to sweep 13.8 million from the disability support fund into the general fund. But their original comeback also had $1 million going to the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation so that they could draw down 3.7 million more in federal funds. to address voc rehab wait lists and so that is still part of it of what they're asking for I think the committee could consider that or the committee could consider doing a 15 million dollar neat sweep from the disability support fund into the general fund but that entails not Providing the $1 million to the Division of Vocational Rehab. I think the governor's proposal included that as something for the disability community.
Vice Chair Bridges. We should keep the million for the Office of Vocational Rehab. This would be a new appropriation in the bill. It's not something that they already get. But it would be one time in order to draw down more, oh, to reduce a wait list. It would be one time to reduce a wait list one time.
Okay. Rep Taggart. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE 4.1 MILLION BILL FOR THE CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING?
THAT REMAINS AN ONGOING GENERAL FUND. CORRECT, THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGES TO APPROPRIATIONS. IT CONTINUES ON.
YEAH. OKAY. SO WE'RE NOT, OKAY. I'D BEEN NERVOUS, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT WAS GOING AWAY.
VICE CHAIR BRIDGESS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND WE'RE COMFORTABLE THAT THE SWEEP TO THE GENERAL FUND FROM THERE IS A-OK?
YEAH. Yeah, I also ran the numbers on my end based on what our projections are, and it would be fine for the Department of Labor employment long term to sweep that amount. They would still have enough funding. Okay.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the neat sweep minus the $1 million. So not the neat sweep.
You move the OSBB come back. I thought we were going to do that. Your options are... I'd like to, yeah. Okay.
Ms. Kanagaraja. If you want to take a modified version of what I said, it could be a neat sweep of $14 million and then one-time appropriation of $1 million so there's a vision of vocational rehab or a neat sweep of $15 million.
No, the first, the 14 with the one.
And then the approval would be to... Messy sweep. THE APPROVAL WOULD BE TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE BILL DRAFT FOR THE SPECIAL PURPOSE AUTHORITY BILL. OH, YEAH. WE CAN JUST DO IT THERE. YES.
AND THEN WHILE THE COMMITTEE IS MAKING A MOTION, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THE BILL DRAFT OR FLAGGED FOR ME THAT THE COMMITTEE APPROVED A $7 MILLION SWEEP OF THE DISABILITY SUPPORT FUND FOR 2526 FOR BALANCING, WHICH HAD BEEN IN THE CASH FUND TRANSFERS BILL. IT WOULD BE EASIEST TO JUST DO IT ALL IN THE SPECIAL PURPOSE AUTHORITY BILL.
OKAY.
VICE CHAIR BRIDGESS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. Yeah, let's move it. Let's put that into that bill. I move that we put that into this bill. Also, is there any way that we can do some of that sweep in the current fiscal year? I know we've been looking at trying to move cash funds into the current fiscal year.
Sorry, could you repeat your question?
Sure. We had talked about trying to move as much into the general fund from cash funds that were sweeping in the current fiscal year as opposed to doing it in 26-27. So could we make that sweep in the 25-26 fiscal year so that we're solving the problem we're attempting to solve by sweeping as much as we can this year?
Yeah, so it would be a 21, yes, an additional $14 million sweep into fiscal year 25-26.
Yes, great. So moved.
Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Or do we really want to do 14? Because unless some of it is in here, we're only short at this point 8.5.
Ms. Cunningham. I think perhaps the motion could include as much into Fiscare 25-26 as to get us to balance, and then the remainder into 26-27.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you Madam Chair Um sweeps yeered out parceled out at your discretion Director Harper Thank you Madam Chair
Representative Taggart, I think there's definitely no harm in creating a little bit of a buffer for the end of your balance. I think it's not going to be sitting there available for folks to spend. and I'm a little bit worried that if you, obviously you all have chosen one forecast, but the other forecast, the shortfall in the current year would be a very different number. So I would not be worried about putting all of this in 25, 26.
Okay, Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. So all of it, 25, 26, the messy sweep leaving the 1 million that goes to the... Division of Vocational Reaction. Yes, that. Thank you.
Okay.
Rep Taggart. I included 10 here. It's more. It's more. Okay.
All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Kirkmeyer excused. Thank you. Okay. Mr. McClure, you're back.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Andrew McClure, JBC staff. Just a quick cleanup. In the motion on the decarbonization cash fund, you just gave me permission to do the transfer. I'm also looking for permission to repeal the fund as there will not be any balance left in it. So just for statutory cleanup.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. By all means, dear God, please eliminate empty cash funds wherever we find them as a standing request. This is bananas. And maybe we'll earn some interest in it and get to spend some more money next year. Crazy people. Yes, please. I move that we add that to the motion if it was not already clear.
Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Kirk Mayer excused. Thank you. Okay. I think that's where we have to conclude for the day. Okay. All right. The Joint Budget Committee will stand in recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. .