May 7, 2026 · Appropriations · 7,567 words · 15 speakers · 213 segments
. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations will come to order. Mr. Katleff, please call the roll.
Senators Gonzalez. Good morning.
Kirkmeyer. On time.
Colker. Here.
Liston. I'm here.
Pelton. On time.
Mr. Vice Chair. It's a nice change that so many of these folks were actually on time today.
Madam Chair.
Always on time.
It's true.
Always early.
Always early.
Okay.
I have Senate Bill 148 at the top of the list. I didn't have any communication, so I guess we're ready.
Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy to be here to present to you Senate Bill 148 and happy to answer any questions about it from the committee.
Okay. Mr. Vice Chair, would you like to move Senate Bill 148?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 148.
There is no J. Committee members, any questions? Do you have any? No? Okay.
Senator Korkmeyer. Sure. Can you explain why am I seeing UPTF in this fiscal note?
Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this bill contains a loan from the UPTF to the Clean Energy Fund, and that loan, which comes in increments of $10 million up to $50 million, is then used to finance the program at a 2% return.
And Senator Kerkmeyer, is this a new program or is this a continuing program?
Senator Ball. The Clean Energy Fund is not new, but this is a new program.
Okay.
Seeing no further Senator Bridges Thank you Madam Chair Senator I thought this bill was going to be laid over I thought there were still discussions happening on this I think there is a path to getting me to a yes, but I will be a no vote today. I think it is a creative use of financing. I think it is in line with using state funds in a way that actually benefits the people of Colorado. I have some concerns, especially about the balloon payments at the end of this thing. And so I think there is a path on this. If it's running today, I don't think that that path currently exists in the bill. So my apologies on that. Again, I thought we had a little more time, but I'll be a no for today.
Senator Liston. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Ball, you say here that the return on this fund will be 2%.
Senator Ball. That's correct. Right now, the Treasurer's Office gets approximately 3.4% from the investments for the UPTF. This returns about 2% for that up to $50 million of the UPTF that would be loaned through this fund for this program.
Okay, seeing no further questions, Mr. Catlett, please poll the Committee on the Adoption of Senate Bill 148.
Senators Gonzalez Aye
Kirkmeyer No
Coker No
Liston No
Pelton No
Mr. Vice Chair Regretfully no
Madam Chair Yes That bill fails on a vote of 5-2
Mr. Vice Chair Thank you Madam Chair Move to PI on a reverse roll call
Any objections? Seeing none, we'll do the reverse roll call. All right, next up we have Senate Bill 185, and I see Senator Marchman is here. Committee, do you have any questions for the bill sponsor on 185?
Senator Kirkmeyer. Sure. My usual question, the out year it says up to $500,000 for this enhanced security of whatever it is. It's a study or something, isn't it? Or whatever it is. Could you explain that, please? Thanks.
Senator Marchman. Yes, and I was expecting that question. Good. I think everyone is starting to get the memo. Yeah, I've been here before. It's not my first rodeo. But the way the bill is crafted, this is a JTC bill. It's in response to some pretty rough OIT audits that have happened. And so the $500,000 you're seeing in the out year can be covered by TRPR, the TRPR fund, if we request an audit. But we made it really hard to request an audit. The audit we want to check is if OIT says they did something, we have to figure out if they really did that. because we've had multiple audits now where things have not been done, and we've got now stacked layers of risks. It's all good. So that's what that is. So let me explain the process. If we, if the CISO comes and introduces, they've fixed some things, then our committee gets to say within 90 days, you know, we're going to audit just to trust but verify. And if we do that, it goes to the legislative audit committee. And then they have to look at the audits that they have going on to figure out if they will approve that or not, if it's approved by JTC. and the Legislative Audit Committee, then the bill says that TRPR can cover that fund. Now, I will tell you one amendment that I was thinking about this morning, because we keep taking from TRPR, is maybe putting a, like, $750,000 base has to stay there just in case we have an audit that comes up. But it's not in there now, but that's just my explanation. Thank you.
Okay. Committee members, any further questions? And I don't see any amendments. So, Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of Senate Bill 185. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Kirkmeyer. Aye. Coker. Aye. Liston. Aye. Pelton. Aye. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously, and it was out of the previous committee unanimously. Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Chair. May I say just the recommend the consent calendar?
Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be on the consent calendar. Next up, we have House Bill 1004, and I see we have the Dream Team.
Oh, boy. That is not how I describe it. Oh, that just changed. I'm a no. No. You're Jordan? Are you Bird? Oh, you're Chamberlain? I thought maybe Bird. Okay. I thought you were Pippin. Yeah, why? I thought it was Pippin. I thought you were Scotty Pippin. I thought he was Jordan. You were Bird. Okay, all right.
Settle down.
You do kind of look like Pippin. He does, don't you think? Exactly. I'm Phil Jackson. Yeah. Okay. I'm calling a foul. I'm sorry Pass the ball, let's go I started this
Committee members, any questions on 1004?
What makes them the dream team? I don't know
Is that the question?
Is that your question? Yeah
Okay, I'm not going to allow you to answer that
Okay, fair enough
We've got stuff to do today
Senator Kirkmeyer Yes, thank you Madam Chair I'd like the dream team to talk to us about their fiscal notes
Senator Simpson Thank you Madam Chair Thank you, Senator Kirkmeyer. So the fiscal notes identifies, based on past history, the use of the tax credit, a $21 million reduction in state revenues next year. But the fiscal analysts, they're not allowed to incorporate what the implications are. Like if we didn't have this child care tax credit, I think would, based on life experiences and instinct, it would say, you know, it would reduce the number of people working in the workforce contributing to taxes. So I think because the analysts can't make those assumptions, this on net is a positive tax flow to the state of Colorado.
Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am a yes on this bill. I have concerns about the 10-year extension on this just because there are lots of people that are very interested in making sure that child care is affordable here in the state, and there are lots of different approaches. and because of Tabor, if there is something that changes in three, four, five years, this only repeals at the end of that. So there is a world perhaps in which child care is free for the people of Colorado and yet we have this tax credit hanging out costing us money on the books.
So I do have concerns about that 10 but I be a yes for today Okay Senator Kirkmeyer Thank you Well so I don have a concern about the 10 thing so I am going to be a yes vote because I think this was originally my bill with Senator Buckner. And it was supposed to go, and here's the thing, it was supposed to go for like five years, and it got reduced to three years because I remember arguing on the floor that the first floor shouldn't get to dictate what we do on the second floor. So anyway. So we're picking it back up. That's a reoccurring theme in this building. Okay.
Mr. Vice Chair, can you move the bill? Indeed, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1004.
Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1004. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Kirkmeyer. Aye. Colker. Aye. Liston. Aye. Pelton. Aye. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye, that bill passes unanimously. Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Recommend the consent calendar.
Any objections? C.
Yeah, I do.
You object. Okay, that won't be on the consent calendar. Next up, we have House Bill 1014, and I see our Senate sponsors are here.
The assignment is important. Will they start immediately? Ouch. Well, there's always next year.
Okay. Committee members, any questions?
Well, actually, let's start with Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1014.
Any questions for the bill sponsors?
Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could you explain the bill, the fiscal note, with regard to the bill?
Senator Brazil looks ready. No, Senator Ball.
Sure. So this bill extends the job growth instead of income tax credit for an additional eight years. That means that this will certify an additional $31.5 million for that tax credit that's to be claimed in that eight-year period of 2028 to 2035. That's obviously not all claimed at once. This is something that businesses have to meet a number of criterias to pull down. And we are assuming, the fiscal note is assuming, based on how much the last tax credit was used, that about 60%, so a little under $18 million of that total amount available, will be claimed, spread out over that period of time. And so that's what accounts for the fiscal note.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Catlett, please. Senator Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Similar concerns the last one. Eight years on this is a long time, and because of TABOR, we can't undo these once we have them in place. The OSPB and LCS both say it's about 50-50 that we'll head into a recession here in the next year, and we are so close to the TABOR cap at this moment that if we do head into a recession, we will have a lot of tax credits that are eating in to dollars that could otherwise be used for supporting kids on Medicaid with disabilities. So I will be a yes on this, but I have deep concerns about the length of the timeouts that we're putting on all the tax credit bills that we're seeing here. So I'll still be a yes, but I have concerns in just flagging this so that I can say I was right in four years.
You can do an amendment.
Senator Colker. Thank you. Madam Chair I appreciate my colleagues forecast of you know what could happen and having those hesitations which I understand completely The one thing about this tax credit that I do like is that it's a hard tax credit to get. And it does create jobs. it does you know if we're in a recession these are the things that we want if we're cutting so it's a balance I understand but that's why I'm in favor of the bill
Senator Frisell thank you and I apologize for like the deer in the headlights look this is my first time in front of the appropriations committee this year and I'm a little rusty so I apologize and thank you
Thank you, Senator Kolker, for pointing out. So this is a hard tax credit to achieve, and the businesses have to, like, create and they have to maintain the new jobs, the net new jobs, for at least one year before even receiving the credit. So I think that that's a really important point, and thank you for bringing it up.
Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1014. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Kirkmeyer. Aye. Coker. Aye. Liston. Aye. Pelton. Aye. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously. It wasn't on the. We will have. No consent calendar, please. We'll have one small technical amendment on the floor.
You didn't qualify anyway, so. Oh, we didn't? Oh, I thought we did. Never mind. I was being optimistic. It wasn't unanimous out of the previous committee. Okay.
Whoa.
Good morning.
Next up.
Say that now.
Next up, we have Senate Bill 1111.
Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 1111 and J004.
Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsors?
Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you explain your fiscal note?
Why is it dropping a couple thousand, a couple hundred dollars?
Senator Kipp. Yes, thank you. What this bill does is it sets up an enterprise to allow agricultural and, you know, commercial facilities to safely dispose of pesticides because it's really very hard and much more expensive to do in this state. So that is what the money is for. It takes in money and expends it for that purpose. We're creating the most minimal enterprise possible because we will be having like one employee who contracts us out, but given that we need somebody to coordinate it so that they can, by volume, make it more efficient and therefore less expensive for people to dispose of these pesticides, it will be much easier. There's very, this really needs to get done. There's very dangerous pesticides and legacy pesticides that cannot be taken elsewhere in the state that we need to properly dispose of. Unfortunately, this bill did come over to the Senate. Well, fortunately, this bill did come over to the Senate with a fiscal note,
But once it got to the Senate it was noticed that they needed to do this overage in Tabor funds which I understand has happened previously in this session And this must be appropriated to the Department of Law for the purpose of having attorneys for the enterprise I understand this came to light later, and I understand that previously I believe that you all maybe decided not to adopt the J Amendment or whatever to do that. So that is certainly at your discretion. Okay. Committee members, any objections to J-4?
Yes, I see one.
So Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of J-4. Senator Gonzalez. Aye. Kirkmeyer. No. Colker. Aye. Liston. No. Pelton. No. Mr. Vice Chair.
Just to be clear, the J Amendment reduces the existing appropriation in the current bill from $20,771 to $19,875. So a no vote on the J doesn't mean that this isn't funded. It means it's funded at a couple hundred dollars more than the department now says they need. So aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That amendment passes 4-3. and Mr. Catlett, please.
Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Roberts, one of my questions was, is why do we need to start the enterprise? There's kind of a developing theme this year, especially in my district that I keep hearing about, the legislator going around Tabor, this sort of thing. And my district is a very heavily pesticide use district. So my question is, why do we need to do the enterprise? Because not everybody that I live around are going to say, well, that was a good idea to have an enterprise. So my question is, why do we need it?
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Pelton. So right now, in order to dispose of pesticides, somebody would have to contract with a private company. and that can often cost thousands of dollars per disposal occurrence. This, by creating an enterprise, we're allowing the state to contract with a third-party vendor to do this and offer extremely discounted prices to folks to dispose of their pesticides. I think the bill says only up to $50 for disposing of the pesticides. So it offers Coloradans a significant cost savings to safely dispose of these pesticides rather than having to pay much more to do it with a private company.
Senator Liston. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Roberts, will there be a pesticide facility in every county?
How's that going to work? Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Liston. And so the bill proposes to set up a program within the Department of Agriculture in which they'll contract with a third-party disposal entity, and then they will have recycling events across the state over the course of a year. So they will pick certain towns and regions that they need to hit. People don't dispose of their pesticides every month or even every year, And so the hope is that we'll have a schedule and then people can know when an event is happening near them and they can travel to that site.
Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hear the concerns from my colleague from Peltonia on this. This to me seems like exactly the kind of thing that should be an enterprise. And even in a world where we weren't up against a taper limit, This is the kind of thing that is – it looks like a business. It runs like a business. It's independent. It funds itself. This is exactly the reason that we have enterprises. And so I think that is one of the more appropriate uses of enterprises that I've seen this year.
Okay. Mr. Katlebb, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1111. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Kirkmeyer. Aye. No. Coker. Aye. Liston. Aye. Pelton. No. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes 5-2. Thank you. Next up, we have House Bill 1206. I see our bill sponsors are here. I don't see any amendments.
Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move. House Bill 1206.
Committee members, questions for the bill sponsors?
Senator Kirkmeyer. Yes, I need to explain the fiscal note.
Senator Benavidez. Thank you. The fiscal note was about $24,000 before and we put an amendment on in the Finance Committee. It's the last paragraph at the first page of the canary colored report you got. And that by removing the ability for the housing authorities to impose a tax, there's no requirement to change GenTax because they would have to do it through existing authority of the counties or the cities.
Senator Liston. Thank you, Madam Chair. So you're going to have gifts, grants, and donations to take care of the $24,000?
Senator Linstead. Senator Benavides. I'm sorry. No, you're fine. That was removed as well because it reduced the fiscal note to zero by the amendment that we put on. But if I could add, we do have a commitment letter from the local chapter of the National Association of Housing Redevelopment Officials to fund that. But after the amendment, we don't need it because the fiscal note was for gen tax and they don't need to change gen tax. If you're not if you don't have a new entity imposing a tax, the tax, if it goes through the ballot, would be imposed by the county or the city. And they already have the ability. And Dora doesn't have a problem with that door.
Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. It was only $24,000 to reprogram GenTax. That's like the cheapest GenTax reprogramming I've ever seen in any fiscal note. Given that you have a commitment to cover that, why remove that? Why have this weird workaround where the housing authorities have to go through cities and counties and other authorities?
Senator Benavidez. The workaround, the amendment wasn't because of the fiscal note. We had a gift commitment letter to cover that. The amendment that removed that requirement from Department of Revenue did a lot more things Okay So that was the real purpose not the fiscal note Okay Committee members any further questions Seeing none Mr Katla please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1206
Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Kirkmeyer. No. Coker. Aye. Liston. No for today. No for today. Pelton. No. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes four to three. Next up, we have House Bill 1287.
Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1287.
Okay. I don't see. Oh, I'm sorry. I do see him. I'm so sorry. I was looking for somebody a little smaller to come forward.
Senator Colker.
Could he zoom in? It's just a sunset with no current appropriation.
You already moved it. You already moved it, so I encourage an aye vote.
Do you want to explain the fiscal note?
No. It's a sunset. So appropriation has been appropriate for 26-27, and this would be the appropriation that's been going already for this department.
Okay, committee members, any questions? Seeing none.
No.
Mr. Catlett, please pull the committee on the adoption of 1287. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Kirkmeyer. Aye. Colker. Aye. Liston. Aye. Pelton. Aye. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously. Was it unanimous in committee?
No.
No, apparently not. Was it unanimous in committee?
It should be. It's for real estate agents.
Okay. Mr. Vice-Chair. Or Senator Kolker.
I recommend consent calendar if eligible.
Okay. Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be placed on the consent calendar. All right. Next up we have House Bill 1428. Senator Kirkmeyer.
Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26, 14, 28 and L-001, which was the white paper, one of the white papers that you were handed a memo. And it is from the memo that is from Amanda Bickle, the JBC staff. First of all, I just want to thank Amanda for helping get this completed. But the amendment's pretty easy and it was asked by the online providers. Everybody came together and agrees to it. And it just specifies that online providers may choose to submit various supplemental materials addressing online school quality expenditures and enrollment data. Ask for an aye vote.
Okay, committee members, any objection to L001? Seeing none, L1 is passed. Committee members, Senator Kolker.
Can the sponsor explain the fiscal note?
Senator Kirkmeyer.
No.
Is that your final answer?
Yeah, I think the other sponsor needs to answer.
Senator Bridges.
Read through it real fast. Thank you, Madam Chair. There's $125,000 just for one year for the department to stand up some of the data collection processes for this new collection. I think this is a reasonable amount given how much the state spends on these particular programs and the need to ensure that they are actually serving the students here in Colorado especially compared to the insane amount of money that we are seeing increase in various different areas here through this program.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
And I believe the funding will come from the State Education Fund.
Okay, this is the committee of reference for this bill. And so is there anyone here who would like to testify or anyone online? We don't have anybody signed up, but okay. Seeing none, the witness phase is over. We're going wildly out of order, but Mr. Catlett has pulled a committee on the adoption of 1428 as amended by L1. Senators Gonzalez.
Aye.
Kirkmeyer. Aye.
Coker. Aye.
Liston. Aye.
Pelton. Aye.
Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously. And since we're the Committee of Reference, Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar? Any objections? Seeing none, that would be placed on the consent calendar. Okay, next up, we're back for some more excitement. Popcorn. I need popcorn. We are now on to Senate Bill 178, and I understand there are some amendments. Would you like us to move L14 and L15?
Yes, please.
Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 178, L14, and L15.
Bill sponsors, would you like to explain your amendments? Senator Judah.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So L14 was actually just a technical fix that JBC's staff and our drafter found, and so we just needed to redraft that really quick and bring to you L14 that amended 12 that we had yesterday.
Okay. How about L15?
Do you want to talk about L15 or vote on L14 first? I can go into 15 if you want.
Yeah, let's talk about L15. Okay.
L-15 was taken from significant feedback from this committee yesterday. What it does is it requires a JBC presentation, really looking at different cost savings mechanisms, analyzing going down to 15% statewide reinsurance impact, also looking at a tiered structure for the premium RAP program and having that presentation given to the JBC to go over those cost savings also says that bonds cannot be issued until at the earliest January of 2027 there's also language in this amendment that came from Senator Kirkmeyer's amendment yesterday on premiums for Omni salute and that's what the amendment does trying to address I think some of the feedback we heard around sustainability of this program around premiums got some feedback around the bonding mechanism I also want to say to that we have an amendment for cost savings this year that could not be DRAFTED IN TIME FOR APPROPRIATIONS THAT JUST WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD THAT WE WILL BE OFFERING ON SECONDS IF THIS COMMITTEE LETS US BILL TO SECONDS THAT WILL TAKE THE 20 REQUIRED COST SAVINGS IN the reinsurance program down to 18 required And that is estimated, DOI wasn't able to get us an exact number, but that will be an estimated savings to the program of about $10 to $15 million a year that will be less than they need to expend today. And so we just couldn't have that ready for this morning. But that is an amendment that will be offered on seconds if we get there.
Okay.
Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this amendment. I don't love the January 1st date as part of the briefing in January piece on this. I feel like if the bonds start getting sold on January 1, we'd love to know before then what the ultimate plan is. Although I think the thing that's really important to point out is that any proposals shared with the JBC on ways to save costs in this program in that briefing will not impact the costs that we are heading into with this bill today. Whatever that bond amount is, whatever that dollar amount is that we take out of the taper reserve, the presentation in January will not be able to have an impact on that because of how these plans are put together and the required timing for all of that. So I am grateful for the amendment on second reading. I still don't think it's enough. It's enough to get me to a yes here today. I still think that we should implement a tiered approach to the premium wraps this year as opposed to waiting for next year. That is a huge part of the cost. And as I said yesterday, this is unsustainable. The way this enterprise is working, $130 million of tax credits we sold last summer that we still can't sell, $140 million this year, with a significant cut to that coming on second reading. But still, bonding is not what we do for one-time costs. That is, this is one of the craziest fiscal proposals I have heard in my 10 years in the legislature. I am deeply concerned about it, but I have a commitment to cut the total amount, and I think that's the most that I can get. So I will be a yes today.
Senator Liston. Thank you. So, Senator Mullica, would you explain to me how the premium structure is going to work for Omni Salud? Can you get into a little more detail?
Senator Mullica.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Liston. We took the language from Senator Kirkmeyer's amendment yesterday on the premiums directing the Division of Insurance to implement premiums on that program. That was allowed through a previous bill in the special session on 1006. And so it's just a direct directive to the DOI to implement the premiums on that program. And so we literally took it word for word from Senator Kirkmeyer's amendment yesterday.
Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. And on that, I think there are some guardrails we need to put on what those look like, but that is a conversation for, I guess, the second reading today on this thing. We've got to get it moving, so let's stay in touch.
Any further questions? Any objections?
Senator Colker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure we're talking about Amendment 15, correct? How will the bonds, because we talked yesterday about outside of committee having a specific revenue source pay for the bonds, but I don't see this in the amendment. And also talked about the bond being callable, and I don't see this in the amendment.
Senator Malka.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Corker. What you're talking about with the Connect for Health, the tax credits are already in the bill to help with the payment of those bonds. And so that's already in the bill. Through an amendment, I know we had talked about saying up to $100 million. We had already made that change in the Finance Committee. So there was already language in the bill for that. I'll have to maybe phone a friend on the callable question. It's my understanding that I think that's the case anyway for any bonds that are issued. But I might have to phone a friend on that one. Thank you.
I just wanted to make sure that we have that option to pay them off early. As Senator Bridges said, I do not like taking a loan. My purpose and understanding of this is if this is a one-year using those tax credits that are taking the loan and we make the cuts, whatever we need to do, then we have savings. we should be able to pay that loan off without seeing this through to whatever term that it was originally intended for. So that's my goal.
Senator Mullica.
And I'll just be on the record. I completely agree, Senator Colger.
Okay. Is there any objection to the adoption of the element?
Senator Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to understand and I appreciate that there will be further amendment language coming forward regarding Omni Salud guardrails. I'd like to understand from the sponsors what you all intend those guardrails to be.
Senator Mullica.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Omni salute guardrails. I guess I'm not following the, can you expand that? Senator Gonzalez, what do you? Senator Gonzalez.
This is, you mentioned that there would be language coming forward in an amendment that would be forthcoming on the floor should this bill make it to the floor to fully implement premiums for OmniSalud. Thereafter, the vice chair responded and said yes, and there will need to be guardrails. And so I'd like to hear from you all what you believe those guardrails ought to be.
Senator Mullica.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. I appreciate that clarification. The premium language is in the amendment that's in front of you currently. The amendment that we're talking about for the floor is on the reinsurance program. And so the reinsurance program requires, by law, requires that there's a 20% cost savings. And so that takes so much investment into reinsurance to ensure that there's that cost savings. What the amendment on the floor, if we make it there, is going to be is takes that down to 18%, which will lower the amount that the enterprise will need to invest in reinsurance. And so there'll be less dollars that they'll need to invest in reinsurance because they won't have to meet the 20%. They'll just have to meet 18%.
Okay Any further questions Any objections to L14 Seeing none L14 is adopted Any objection to L15? Seeing none, L15 is adopted. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of Senate Bill 178 as amended. Senators Gonzalez.
Aye. Kirkmeyer.
No. Coker.
Aye. Liston.
No. Pelton.
No. Mr. Vice Chair.
Aye for today. Madam Chair.
Aye. That bill passes four to three. Next up, we have Senate Bill 193, which you all just received last night. And we are the committee of reference for this bill. Senator Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 193.
So I know that we do have some witnesses signed up to testify, and our first witness is Director Ferrandino. Tell us your name and who you're with, and you have two minutes to testify.
Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, Mark Ferrandino, Director of the Office of State Planning and Budgeting. We are in support of the Senate bill and thank the JBC for the support of this legislation. This bill does three things. One, it codifies current practice that the state, when we allowed locals to set their own minimum wage, that the state does not comply with local minimum wage, just like the federal government doesn't comply with states or locals minimum wage. Local states shouldn't have to comply with local minimum wage. the way we do payroll and steps sorry and classifications is everyone in the state both classified and non-classified employees both by article I think 12 of the constitution that requires compensation for all people in the personnel system to be the same basically that is important for classified non-classified except for the people outside the personnel system and we don't have the ability currently to differentiate between localities. So one locality could impact the entire state, and that's why we are clarifying what the practice was since the beginning, since the passage of this, that we are not subject to local minimum wages. It also does, through what will be a supplemental process, adjust the state's minimum pay through negotiations with Colorado WINS to 1929, and that would have a cost of roughly $6 million and about $1.8 million general fund to move both individuals up to the minimum, that new minimum, and deal with some of the compression impact. And then the last piece of the bill is to say that the state is not subject to occupational taxes or seat taxes at local governments. There's only a few cities that do have those taxes. Senator Bridges.
Thank you Madam Chair Just to confirm what I heard from you and what we heard in the Budget Committee the reason for this bill is essentially that if one jurisdiction anywhere in the state decides to raise their minimum wage to say like or more or whatever it is that every employee in the state would have to be raised to that minimum wage because of that one city So it's not like we can pay folks in, like we have one employee in Aspen and they raise it to $25. Then every worker in the entire state now has to be raised to $25 because of that requirement in the Colorado Constitution. So the options really are either this bill declaring the supremacy or amending the Colorado Constitution. Right?
I'm sorry.
Director Ferrandino. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Bridges.
Yes, as long as we have an employee that is in that location, we would have to adjust not only that employee, but all the people who are associated with that classification in that job. So if it was a one-off, it would not have a huge impact. But if it was a decent-sized city, we would have significant impacts on the state employment, given what the constitutional and the personnel services, how we do. The federal government has different grades in different areas, but they have 2 million employees. We're talking about 30,000 at the state. With higher ed, it's almost 60,000. It doesn't make sense to have different schedules for different locations. Senator Bridges.
But there's so many things about the budget this year that I don't love. So thank you.
Senator Pelton.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Bridges is always okay to pick on Aspen. Come on. Aspen's taking a lot of heat this week. Let's go back to both. My question is, is there anybody signed up to testify other than?
Yes. Okay.
That's all I had. Thank you.
Okay. I would also just like for us to clarify that in the fiscal note, it does not have the cost to the state in the fiscal note, because if you could just explain why that's not in the fiscal note and what the MOU is doing. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Ferrandino. The MOU is setting what the, us in Colorado, when setting the minimum state wage for 1929, I believe that is in 1928. Um, the, as I said, the, the cost roughly is $6.7 million total fund, about 1.8 million general fund, um, to do that, both the movement and then dealing with compression and the impacts on steps. There are two change after the long bill to change compensation. The amount of work to do for JBC staff, um, as well as our staff is significant because we would have to go through every single line item and with personal services and adjust it. There was agreement that the best way to do this was to do it through the supplemental process with the clear direction that the in the bill that OSBB submits a supplemental in line with that and that we would implement the change in pay starting July July 1st just as the start of the fiscal year and would true that up through the supplemental process
Okay. Thank you. Committee members, any further questions for Director Ferrandino? Seeing none, thank you for being here. Stick around. We might want you back. Okay. And then I do have two people who are here in opposition, and I see Ms. Kelly is here. And do we have online or is in the room Matthew Fritz Maurer? Okay. So, Ms. Kelly, since you're here, welcome. Good to see you. Good to see you as well. You state your name and who you're with, and you have two minutes.
Thank you, Chair Mable. My name is Jade Kelly, and I'm the president of CWA Local 7799. I am testifying in strong opposition to Senate Bill 193 before I had to work as a university staff member at CU Boulder. And despite the declaration of this language trying to frame minimum wage as a bargaining issue under the Colorado WINS Partnership Agreement, this bill goes far beyond and exempts huge groups of public workers, including my union brothers, sisters, and siblings, who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement and do not have the legal right to collectively bargain. This bill strips minimum wage protections from approximately 16,000 university staff across the CU system, people like myself. It removes protections for thousands of graduate workers and undergraduate workers, recreating the backbone of higher education workforce due to the sustained budget cuts, pressuring administrators to replace staff members with student workers who make minimum wage on all higher education campuses. This bill also strips protections from paralegals and investigators at the Office of State Public Defender. It exempts frontline healthcare workers at UC Health and Denver Health, including nurse assistants and paramedics making $19.29 an hour. I've watched dozens of good bills die this session because stakeholders were never meaningfully consulted. Our union represents many of the campus workers, legal professionals, and healthcare workers directly harmed by this legislation. And nobody talked to us before drafting it and encouraged us to bargain for our wages, rights that have been routinely denied and resisted by this body. I strongly urge the committee to hit pause before stripping away minimum wage protections from any workers, especially in the middle of an affordability crisis, especially from public employees who already make 23 percent less than our private sector counterparts. I would also like to push back that this bill is not a clarification that the governor's office would believe. It's a new exemption designed to strip public workers of rights and wages that we already have, which is obvious reading the bill's language. I do have amendment language ready that narrows the bill only to employees covered underneath the Colorado WINS Partnership Agreement. Frankly, I remain deeply concerned about the broader implications of this legislation, the rough drafting, the reason behind it, including credible accusations coming from the Denver auditors, obviously the state is committing wage theft and violating the minimum wage in Denver. Public workers deserve better than this.
Okay. Thank you so much. And do we have Mr. Fritz Maurer online? He wants to withdraw. Okay. Are there any questions for this witness? Seeing none, thank you so much for being here and for taking time out of your busy day. Yeah. Next up we have Ms. Hillary Glasgow, who I believe is online. Thank you. Hi. Hello, everyone. Good morning. Give us your name, who you're with, and you have two
minutes to testify. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Hillary Glasgow. I am the Executive Director of Colorado WINS, which is the only exclusive bargaining representative for state of Colorado employees. I am here on behalf of my membership in support of this bill. I'm the executive director of the singular state employee union, Colorado WINS, the exclusive bargaining representative of state employees as elected through the process established in HB 20, 1153. Like we do when we run into an issue for state workers, the state reached out about this situation and we discussed how to handle. The Colorado WINS executive board, many of whom have been on our state bargaining teams, have been wrestling with this issue for years. How do we support our members deal with the rising cost of living across the 64 vastly different counties in Colorado? That's why our board voted to support this bill and its corresponding agreement, because it would lift up roughly 5,000 executive branch classified employees and countless others who colleges have exempted out of their classified worker protections. It would raise their wage from $16 an hour to $19. This applies statewide and we will negotiate from this floor going forward We cannot allow lower governments that legislate for a singular geography to be the arbiter of state employee pay We have a union for that. Our right to bargain on behalf of our members cannot be bound by authorities without our mission, which is to balance the needs of the entirety of the state employee package. We will not allow another authority to dictate a portion that ties our hands on other benefits that may outweigh a modest increase to minimum wage in a single locality. As we head into the years of austerity as handed down to us by the federal government, a higher authority through H.R.1, this raises money our state employees need now. What they don't need is to have to wait for a protracted and expensive court battle that puts the state further in arrears, spending money on lawyers and lawsuits rather than the hardworking people who ensure the state functions and, worse yet, doesn't end in a win for these workers. I ask this committee to please advance Senate Bill 193.
Thank you. Thank you. Committee members, any questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate you taking the time. Thanks so much. Okay. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of Senate Bill 193.
Senator Gonzalez. Thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate the testimony that we heard today and recognize the challenges that this policy is responding to and also I think some of the challenges that have been raised by CWA. I would like to ask the sponsors if they will commit to continuing these conversations with CWA to ensure that their amendment language is reviewed? Well, okay.
I can say that I received some amendment language last night and did send a message that we would look at that, but no guarantee that we're going to accept that.
I can respect that. Thank you.
Okay. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, Mr. Katla, please poll the committee. Senators Gonzalez.
Aye for today. Kirkmeyer.
Aye. Coker.
Aye. Liston.
Aye. Pelton.
Aye. Mr. Vice Chair.
Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously. The committee on appropriations is adjourned See you all tomorrow
Thank you. Thank you.