House Appropriations [May 09, 2026]

House appropriations will come to order Ms. Curry, please call the roll.

Here.

McCormick.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Oh, yes.

All right, Mr. Chair.

I move Senate Bill 155. Sorry. I move J-003 to Senate Bill 155.

Seconded by Representative Joseph. Any questions on J-003? Any objection? Seeing none, J-003 is adopted. Any further amendments to Senate Bill 155? None. Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Second.

Representative Spasenecker.

Joseph.

McCormick.

Richardson.

Stoper.

Taggart.

Zitone.

Velasco.

Zokai.

Madam Chair Sirota.

Mr. Chair Brown.

I'll pass this on a vote of 8 to 3. Thank you, committee. All right. 11-12. Sponsors, welcome. Do we have any questions for our bill sponsors on House Bill 11-12? All right. Seeing none, we have two amendments in our packet.

have a question. Second. Okay. Madam Vice Chair has a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just

Yeah, thank you.

And I want to thank the sponsors for working with me in particular on this particular amendment. What this does is ensures that the JBC will have some line of sight into the fees that are being charged and ultimately will be approving the spending authority for the fees One of the challenging aspects of any fee revenue is that it does count towards our TABO revenue. And so I wanted to make sure that we were putting in writing the process by which the JBC would be involved in decision on how to spend any fee revenue. But it does not directly impact the fiscal impact. I will say that it's the out years. Assuming that the state gets primacy, in the initial years the funding is covered by the cash fund revenue that does not require new fee revenue at all. They have sufficient funds to cover it. In the out years, should the state be granted primacy, the department may choose to levy a fee on the industry in order to regulate these. in which case that becomes a table of revenue impact, and we as the JBC would want to see that in advance. So that's the amendment we came up with.

Sorry, sponsors.

Are there additional questions for our bill sponsors? All right, is there objection to L012? Seeing none, L012 has passed. All right, Madam Vice Chair, would you care to move the J amendment?

Seconded by Representative Titone. Are there any questions about J001? Seeing none other objections. Seeing none, J001 has passed. Any additional amendments, sponsors?

Committee members? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Madam Vice Chair.

Seconded by Representative Titone. Final discussion? Ms. Curry, please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, it passes 9 to 2. Thank you, committee. All right, there you go. All right, next up, Senate Bill 3. Are there any questions from the committee for the sponsors? Seeing no questions, Bill sponsors, do you have any amendments?

Committee members, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed.

Joseph. Yes.

Richardson. No.

Taggart. Yes.

Velasco. Yes.

Madam Tresorota. Yes.

I guess that passes 10 to one.

Thank you.

We have our sponsors here.

You're up.

It's okay.

It seems like L011, L012, and the J, I think, as well.

Mr. Chair, I move amendment L011 to Senate Bill 78.

Seconded by Madam Vice Chair.

Representative Taggart. I move amendment L012 to Senate Bill 78.

Seconded by Madam Vice Chair.

Mr. Chair?

With amendment 012, we no longer need the J amendment.

Yes, Mr. Chair, I move Senate Bill 78 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable, as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Representative Speisenacker.

Joseph. Yes.

Richardson. Yes.

Titone. Yes. Velasco. Yes.

Mr. Chair. Yes.

Bill 80 on our calendar, there was a miscommunication. This will be laid over until Monday, Appropriations Committee meeting. Let's move on to Senate Bill 178.

You're in charge. All right, committee members, next on Senate Bill 178, we are the committee of reference for this bill. Chair Brown, would you like to tell the committee about the bill?

Rep Gokerst.

Any questions? Seeing none, we will move on to witness testimony. We have several folks signed up. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Rep. Brown, Chair Brown. Yeah, thank you. I mean, what we are, what the bill does is it sort of, it changes the emergency reserve for the marijuana tax cash fund. Or sorry, it changes the money held in the marijuana tax cash fund as part of the state emergency reserve from basically a liquid asset to essentially this capital annex building. So we are swapping out the value of the building. so that we can use the money that is in the marijuana tax cash fund currently towards this program. So the reserve will remain the same. It's just we'll have a difference in its composition in terms of the assets. Does that make sense?

and miss meschke you can proceed with your two minutes madam chair members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to speak my name is erin meschke i live in boulder and represent myself initially i had two main objections to sb 26 178 first was any use of the unclaimed property trust fund and second was the fallacy that taxing insurance companies 40 million dollars wouldn't increased costs for Coloradans. While the funding source has changed to use marijuana tax, bonds, and premium tax credits, we have already seen unkept promises for the marijuana tax money being able to significantly fund education and the shortfall from the special session premium tax credit scheme. So I have no confidence these sources will work. Also, it seems like common sense, but it's important to note that any sustainable solution cannot be based on borrowing money. The medical and insurance costs being funded by the state have grown leaps and bounds above all projections when previous bills were passed. So the solution must be found in reevaluating programs and reclaiming waste, fraud and abuse, and ultimately not offering such broad coverage. We need another approach, but SB 26178 will only raise costs and push the problem off

You have two minutes. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Isabel Cruz and I'm the Policy and Advocacy Director for the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. I'm here today to express our amend position on SB 178 and ask for your support on amendments to find a funding source that doesn't risk the future viability of these programs on an expensive temporary solution. We appreciate the sponsors for bringing this policy forward and the work over the last year to navigate challenging politics to protect vital coverage programs for Coloradans. But the bill as amended in the Senate needs significant work to ensure you're advancing sound policy for our state. Colorado cannot afford to risk leaving people uninsured or forcing families' premiums to go up with the current shortfalls facing the enterprise. Lack of insurance has a ripple effect on our economy and all residents. Investing in reinsurance, subsidies for low and middle income enrollees. And OmniSalud is not just about health care. It's about Colorado's economic future. It's important to remember that the health insurance fee that currently funds the enterprise is simply an extension of what insurers previously paid at the federal level. In fact, they pay at least 30 percent less now than they used to under the original ACA provisions. Independent evaluation of Colorado's programs has shown that state-based subsidies and the high programs can lower costs and actually improve affordability while maintaining and stable insurance market. We can and must do better than relying on bonds to support these important programs. Bonds are a smart financing tool for capital construction, not for one-time program expenditures. What kind of high interest rates will be needed to be offered for investors to bite on this unusual and risky investment opportunity? How many thousands of Coloradans could we cover for the next 15 to 20 years with the dollars needed to fund debt service for one year of program funding At a time when immigrants access to coverage and rural access to health care are under attack nationally Colorado must lead in ensuring that health coverage and health care remains accessible to all This bill is an important bridge but we must do better with

Next, Ms. Martinez. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Vanessa Martinez, and I'm testifying on behalf of COLOR, the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights, in an amend position on Senate Bill 178. COLOR supports the goal of this bill because the enterprise is a critical part of Colorado's health care affordability and infrastructure. It helps keep people covered, stabilizes the insurance market, reduces uncompensated care costs, and protects families from having to choose between rent, groceries, and health care. But that affordability infrastructure is put at risk by the bill's revenue bond. We would be taking on 20 years of debt to pay for just one-year program expenses, and the people carrying that risk are not insurance companies, hospitals, or even the state, all of whom benefit from the enterprise. The people really carrying that risk are community members already struggling to make ends meet, including families living with fear and uncertainty as they navigate the U.S. immigration system. These are the same communities that face the deepest harm every time funding falls short and lawmakers rely on another temporary fix. Even after the passage of 1006 in special session, the only enterprise program that was cut was Omni Slew, and more than 5,000 immigrant Coloradans lost their coverage because their name was not drawn in a lottery. Kalor has spoken with families who can no longer afford diabetes medication, who are injured at work and can't access care, and who had to stop cancer treatment after losing coverage. Senate Bill 178 is another one-year solution, but one with long-term debt consequences. We urge you to consider floor amendments that restore an insurance carrier fee as a more sustainable and accountable funding source for the enterprise.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Toni Sarge. I'm the Director of Health Policy at the Colorado Children's Campaign. The Colorado Children's Campaign is a nonpartisan policy organization committed to making Colorado the best place to be a kid and to raise a kid. I'm testifying this morning in support of Senate Bill 178, and I'm grateful to Representatives Brown and Representatives Gilchrist for carrying this bill and appreciate you all for making time to talk about health care this morning. We know with absolute clarity that when families have health insurance, their kids do better. Research consistently shows that insured children receive preventative care, their developmental screenings, and treatment for illness earlier. When kids have health coverage, they're less likely to rely on emergency rooms and more likely to meet their developmental milestones. Last year here in Colorado, 29,000 families with kids received Colorado premium assistance subsidies. This premium assistance program, along with reinsurance and Omni Salud, are critical programs to the affordability enterprise that Colorado families depend on. These programs help families say yes to the care that their kids need. We had hoped this bill would provide a path for long-term funding structure, securing these programs for multiple years on a sustainable funding source. We appreciate the study component and the restructuring of how reinsurance dollars flow so that we can emphasize the programs that help Colorado families the most. And while we're grateful for an opportunity to be creative in the funding structures, we are concerned that these bond dollars put the programs at risk in future years. I'm eager and grateful to work with the sponsors after session on new creative ideas to ensure Colorado's families have better access to care, even when the federal government no longer a reliable partner. Today, Senate Bill 178 is a critical juncture to fund these programs so that the families who receive affordable coverage now can continue to do so. And I

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Christina Walker. and I'm the Senior Director of Policy at Healthier Colorado, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing every Coloradan with the opportunity to live a healthy life. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 178. As part of our mission at Healthier, we want to ensure that folks can access and maintain their health care coverage. Research has shown time and time again that access to preventative care saves us money down the line, strengthens public health outcomes, and makes our communities healthier. Without health care coverage, people put off accessing care, become sicker, and utilize emergency rooms for more routine care, which is far more expensive. Moreover, when Coloradans have health insurance, our health care providers can continue to get paid. As we learned during the Medicaid unwind, Colorado's providers saw an increase in uninsured rates that rivaled pre-Affordable Care Act levels, and we put an intense strain on our safety net providers. If the number of uninsured continues to rise, leading to increased uncompensated care, Colorado's healthcare providers will be faced with more challenging decisions, such as making service line cuts or to close altogether. During last year's special session, the legislature passed a bill to secure one-time funding for the high that allowed thousands of Coloradans to maintain their health insurance coverage for the 2026 plan year. During the interim, bill sponsors diligently pulled together diverse stakeholders to discuss a long-term funding solution for the high, and we want to thank them for that work. However, we are disappointed that we are here again today supporting another one-time fix. We are also concerned at the funding mechanism of a $100 million revenue bond, which puts the long-term solvency of the high at risk. We are also disappointed that a one-time fee on insurance companies of just $40 million was removed from the bill in the Senate instead of being used to reduce the level of the bond. Healthier Colorado still believes Senate Bill 178 is a reasonable step forward to maintain folks' access to health insurance for the 2027 plan year. Without the infusion of one-time dollars, we will experience a shortfall in all of the important programs of the high. We look forward to continue to work with the sponsors on a long-term solution. Thank you for your time. Please vote yes on Senate Bill 178.

Good morning, members of the committee, Chairman Brown. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you to the sponsors for bringing this bill forward. My name is Nina Schwartz, Chief Policy and External Affairs Officer for Connect for Health Colorado, the state's official health insurance marketplace. Our board supports this bill because of its clear value for the customers we serve, and I'm here to share what we are seeing on the ground. This past open enrollment marked a shift. After five years of growth, enrollment declined, driven largely by the expiration of the enhanced federal premium tax credits. That change reduced or eliminated financial help for about 78,000 Coloradans, and we estimate consumers are paying now roughly $19 million more per month in premiums than last year. We saw direct impacts, fewer new enrollments, more cancellations, and notable declines among older Coloradans and those in rural areas. Effectuated enrollment is down about 4%, suggesting affordability is affecting people's ability to maintain coverage. At the same time state action made a meaningful and measurable difference More than 176 customers received Colorado premium assistance in 2026 Among individuals aged 26 to 34 who lost federal support about 16 still received state assistance and remained in role. We also saw higher satisfaction among those receiving assistance, 74% compared to 64% without it. For customers without financial help, premiums rose sharply, nearly 29% in Arapahoe County and over 30% in Adams County, while premiums remained relatively stable for those receiving Colorado premium assistance. These differences matter, and they directly influence whether people enroll, renew, or go without coverage. Connect for Health Colorado supports the proposed transfer within the bill of all state funding currently directed to the marketplace, totaling up to $9 million and representing about 16% of our operating budget. This is a priority for us to support our customers and return and through the high program. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions

Thank you madam chair. Thank you committee So you've heard a few things today that I want to touch on the chair talked about the the expiration of the hands premium tax credits And what we were estimating when those tax credits went away and the genesis of house bill bill 1006 during the special session was we were estimating that we were going to lose about 105 to 110,000 people from the individual market. That wasn't just our estimate. That was the estimate that the plans thought we were going to lose as well. So that would have been about a third of the folks in the individual market losing coverage, losing access to health care. What we thought was going to happen with the special session bill is that we were going to keep about 25 or 30,000 of those folks covered. We were wrong. We kept about 70,000 of those folks covered. That's why this bill is so incredibly important. We're continuing the good work of House Bill 1006 with this bill, right? We want to make sure that we have the ability to keep these people covered, because if we don't, if this bill doesn't pass, we will be back to the place where we're losing about 110,000 people from the individual market. And I want to talk about the tax credit donations that was just touched on, the money that's currently going to Connect for Health Colorado, that is going to be transferred now to the enterprise. We did that very specifically, folks, so that we would have the ability to continue to service these revenue bonds in perpetuity. We've already started conversations with insurance companies about making those tax credit donations to the enterprise so that we will have the ability to make sure that we're servicing those bonds. We also built into the bill that we're prioritizing any insurance companies that make premium tax donations to the enterprise, taking those donations from any insurance company that actually purchases the bonds. So we're building this so that we have the ability to, like I said, continuously in perpetuity service these bonds so that we make sure that we're not eating into the funds that are going and that are meant to be going to these very important programs. But folks, I can't urge you enough to vote yes on this bill. It is going to be an incredibly important component of being able to keep people covered happy to answer any questions thank you very much committee members

you madam chair thank you for being here today i think my question is for commissioner conway i i hear i hear what our advocates are saying in terms of trying to find an amendment that uses a different funding mechanism and i also think we've all been here for the last several years to understand how just politically infeasible that is in certain places of this building. I mean we seen what happened when UPTF was pitched as a funding mechanism We seen what happened when fees were utilized as a funding mechanism And so I understand the concern but I have to say that I find it wholly irresponsible to think that we should let a program fail because we don't like the underlying funding mechanism. Because at the end of the day, those are folks in my community who will no longer have coverage, and it's health providers that will have to face for uncompensated care. And I'm wondering if you could put a finer point on what happens, even for a year, if this bill does not go through. Thank you.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Representative, for the question. So Representative Gilchrist touched on that with her opening remarks, but I'll revisit it. And then I think it's important to talk a little bit about what else is in the bill that really is responding to those types of issues. So what we're estimating right now, if this bill fails, that we will, instead of having what is now an 18% premium impact, if this bill passes from the reinsurance program, on average across the state, that will drop down to about a 10% or 11% premium impact. And I think it's important to keep in mind when we're talking about the reinsurance program, that program has different tiers in it. So for the Western Slope in particular and out into Grand Junction, where the reinsurance program has the biggest impact, that program will mean that people are seeing 30%, 40% premium increases if this bill fails.

Representative Velasco.

state fee came to be and where this money goes? Ms. Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Velasco, for the question. So just as a little bit of a reminder for anybody who wasn't here when SB 215 was passed, essentially there had been a health insurance provider's fee baked into the ACA at the federal level that had always been conceived of as a fee, right, to help carriers attract new customers with the affordability programs of the ACA. And essentially, during the last Trump administration, that fee was going to go away. And so we as a state captured part of that fee. It used to be around 2.75 to 3%, whereas now we have 1.5 or 2.1.5% of that fee. And so essentially carriers are paying less now, but we are seeing, as Commissioner Conway spoke to, those affordability programs continue at the state level, helping our state both from the consumer perspective, but also the provider perspective and the carrier perspective and helping promote a stable market. And to speak to the states that are doing better than Colorado in this moment, one of them is our neighbor, New Mexico, that has a much higher fee than us and has been able to not only stop the bleeding of people enrolling, but also increase their enrollments and respond with the nimbleness needed in this moment to help protect New Mexicans insurance coverage. And so I think that, you know, the objection to the fee in the Senate was really the structure. And I think what we're asking for is the opportunity to continue the conversation for a differently structured fee to not even get up to those old levels in the ACA, but make for a more sustainable, even bridge solution right now. So I appreciate the question.

Thank you. My question is for Miss Martinez. Ms. Martinez, can you please explain why a carrier fee is a more accountable way to fund the enterprise? Thank you.

All right. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much, everyone. Was there anyone else in the room or online who wanted to testify on Senate Bill 178? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. All right. Bill sponsors, do you have amendments for us today?

All right. Committee members, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Chair Brown, would you like to move the bill?

Seconded by Representative Basinecker. Any further words from the bill sponsors?

Representative Gilchrist.

All right. Any final discussion from the committee?

Representative Velasco. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the sponsors of this bill and also to Commissioner Conway and all the advocates that have been working on this issue. And I agree with everything that was said, you know, the impossible decisions that have to be made because of our budget situation, the devastating impacts of, you know, the decisions at the federal level and also at the state level that are causing us to be stretched thin. and the costs that are really high in the Western Slope, you know, as someone who continues to see the cost of living increase in our rural resort communities. And I agree with the advocates that we need a sustainable funding. And, you know, I just want to throw out the universal health care. Because that, you know, that's, as you said, health care is a right and it's not a privilege. And as we, you know, I feel like it's devastating also that people are still going to be affected. I mean, you know, the Omni Salute program continues to be cut. So it's, to me, it's very important that we pass this bill, but also that we continue looking at those sustainable funding solutions, not only for health care, but all the things that we care about in Colorado.

Yes. Joseph.

Yes. Richardson.

No. Taggart.

Yes. Velasco.

Yes. Mr. Chair Brown.

Yes. That passes on a vote of 9 to 2.

Representative Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very straightforward bill that establishes a commission on Medicaid within our legislative department, within ourselves. and its purpose is to identify, consider, evaluate, and recommend policy changes to implement a more sustainable Medicaid program in the future. This commission will be meeting between the ending of this session through December 11th and we are to meet 6 to 12 times. There are 10 members of this commission, the six JBC members, as well as two members from the House and two members from the Senate. And it finalizes in a report with suggestions to HICFA about changes that we need to make in the Medicaid program to make sure this program is sustainable in the future. And I would ask for your support. Okay.

Yeah, thank you. And I concur with everything that my co-prime sponsor said. It is a really critical issue as we have been struggling with the unsustainable growth in this program. We need to think about what the appropriate structure of Medicaid is going forward, how we pay our vendors, how we work with providers to lower costs and improve value. And that's what this commission will be about. So we appreciate your support on this.

Hello. Can you hear me, Madam Chair? Yes, we can. Thank you. Okay. Good morning, everyone. My name is Joe Donlan. I'm the legislative liaison for the Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing. We are in a support position for this bill, and I will be brief in just saying we really look forward to having the opportunity to work with the JBC and other key legislators to really dig into some of the tough issues that we are facing. And we really appreciate this thoughtful legislation and look forward to the work ahead. So we ask for your yes vote.

Sorry about that. Something happened on the Zoom right as the hearing was starting, and so I had to log out and log back in. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meshke, I live in Boulder and represent myself. We don't need another commission, especially with a half a million dollar fiscal note. The problems in Medicaid and HICPF are obvious and continually surfacing. I'll list a few that are public knowledge and don't take much digging. The cost of Medicaid in Colorado has grown rapidly, driven by a 115% increase in behavioral health costs and an 82% increase in specialty drug costs since 2018-2019. An investigator's audits recently turned up an estimated $77.8 million in improper payments. Between 2018 and 2024, Medicaid enrollment rose by 7.6%, while HICPF's total FTE employment rose by 72%, and spending by the executive director's office rose by 101%. between 2015 and 2025 HICPF spending grew by 101 percent from 8 billion to 16 billion dollars while the rest of the state's budget grew by just 64 percent which means HICPF's total spending growth over the last decade is higher than the combined growth rates of Medicaid enrollment and medical inflation. HICPF faced our criticism for its management of Medicaid eligibility redeterminations after pandemic related protections expired in 2023 so our medical coverage problem wasn't made by HRY. cuts. It started with bad legislative policy and over-enrollment during COVID. 48% of these redeterminations resulted in disenrollment in Colorado, while the national average was 31%, which took Medicaid coverage in Colorado, which Medicaid coverage in Colorado fell from an all-time high down to nearly its 2015 level. I could go on to talk about the impacts of giving medical coverage to illegal immigrants, but you should already know sufficiently about how that problem is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars that could go to solving problems for actual taxpaying Coloradans. While I'm glad for any savings or surfacing of waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, I'm doubtful the Commission on Medicaid will adamantly leave. So please vote no.

I'll move it. Chair Brown.

I move Senate Bill 187 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Second by everyone, but we'll give it to Rep Taggart.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm glad you didn't promote me fully. I want to explain. I will be a no vote on this for a couple of reasons. One is Medicaid and the fact that the numbers keep rising, both on people going on to Medicaid and the cost to the state are in peril. But I also hear from my constituents that we're entering the worst drought in recorded history, and the legislative response was to cut the year-round water committee. And it's kind of hard to say that we have one issue that is of peril and not another issue that's in peril. The other reason why I'm a little bit skeptical here is it's only legislative members. And as someone who is the chairman of a hospital board, we see every single day that there's policy solutions that we would like to recommend from our administrators back to the state. but it's hard to get folks from our C-suite even a forum to be able to have anyone at HICPA or within the state listen. And so having it be an only legislator committee without having those who are actually at the front lines of health care and administering the numbers on the front line is a little bit troubling. And that's why I'm going to be a no vote. I think it's a noble cause, and I'm sure this will pass, and so I do put that out there. But I do think having people who are on the front lines in terms of the numbers and the budgets to our local hospitals and providers would be wise. Thank you.

Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would add to that. I don't know of six more qualified people that have dug into this budget than the six members of the JBC. And so we start with an education on this that most legislators are not even aware of. We also happen to have relationships out there in the industry that we will pull from. I'm also a member of the board of directors of a major hospital. I know my hospitals and the presidents of those hospitals in Mesa County are on call to help us in this situation. Many of us also have relationships including myself with senior folks at RAIDS And we have a managed care program that works in Western Colorado that I know I would like the president of that particular raid to also work with us on this particular situation and let's keep in mind that had we not made those really difficult cuts this year, we had Medicaid growing at another 12%. And we were only able to cut that in half. And in so doing, it caused for a lot of pain. So I know I'm committed and I know my colleagues are committed for this commission to work really well. And I will also say we have a change in leadership and in interim leadership. And this is the perfect time to be doing this because of that change in leadership. And I do not want to push this out. This is too critical. it's already 35% of our budget, and it requires really good people, both internally from a legislative standpoint, from staff standpoint, and we need the experts that implement this program throughout Colorado to also have major voices in this. So I will push as hard as I can to make this work.

Representative Sbysnecker. Yes.

McCormick. Yes.

Soper. No.

Titone. Yes.

Zocay. Yes.

Madam Chair Schroda. Yes.

Chair Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate, we're getting close. This bill, another JBC bill that requires that the Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing will initiate the transition of services currently provided under the Qualified Residential Treatment Programs and Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities into managed care systems for the Medicaid members who are in the care and custody of county departments of human services. This is kind of a simplifying change, and it makes sure that we are eliminating a transfer of $14 million.3 from health care policy and financing to the Department of Human Services, and instead spending the same amount of money directly through the state's Medicaid program. It just makes sense to do it this way.

Madam Chair I move Senate Bill 188 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation Second Seconded by Chair Brown Any final discussion on Senate Bill 188

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Madam Chair Sirota. Yes. That bill passes unanimously. All right. Senate Bill 191. Who would like to?

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very straightforward bill that clarifies that the state is not an employer for the purpose of minimum wages being set by our municipalities across the state. That would be virtually impossible for us to keep up with because we have so many different municipalities. And in fact, this has been the case for many, many years. And the federal government has similar legislation on this particular subject. It also exempts the state from local government occupational and business taxes. And we just want to reinforce that we cannot be bound by ordinances within municipalities without driving us completely crazy and driving our costs through the roof.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank my co-prime sponsor on this bill. So, you know, I know there's ambiguity in the law at this point, and we have worked really hard with our state employees union to make sure that we are clarifying this, but also helping to raise wages of state employees. And that is happening through the MOU agreement is my understanding. But I also understand that there are other non-classified employees that had concerns about this policy. And so we are adding an amendment to the bill when we hit the amendment phase, L-001, to clarify who is covered under this particular bill and who is not, so that we've come to an agreement, we believe, between all of the unions and the state that will, I think, benefit everybody. So that is my commitment. I would encourage, just given the late hour, if there are not to cut anybody off, everybody is welcome to testify, but I would certainly encourage folks, if you can keep it brief or we can minimize the testimony at this point, that would be fantastic. And just know that we will be adding the amendment that hopefully gets everybody to a good place.

Yeah, it's specifically, it's something that we worked out with lawyers between all of the, between the different unions and the amendment actually clarifies that this bill applies to to state employees that have a collective bargaining agreement in place. So other employees the bill would not apply to.

Thank you. I don't have any questions. I just want to thank Brett Brown for the work that he's done on this bill. and my understanding the union and boulder is in support of this particular amendment i will be in support of the amendment and of the bill as well and thank you for all the work that you have done in bringing these stakeholders forward and listening to their concerns thank you

Good morning. Thank you.

There you go.

Thank you. Sorry about that.

I am Daniel Baderka. I'm representing myself. I am here on behalf as an ally of the employees of Colorado. Listening to the amendment that you just proposed, it sounds like there was a clarifying statement that people who are not part of a union would be exempt from this. Is that to be understood? If that's the case, then I don't believe that I want to eat up the time of the other people who have more statement and more input to this than I would. So I will defer my time to the next speakers in line. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Kaylee Tenbarge. I'm an attorney with the Office as a state public defender and a proud member of the Communications Workers of America 7799. I am very glad to see that this amendment was proposed. I think our union will continue to monitor this bill. I think really my concern is a little bit with perhaps some of the ways that this bill was initially introduced insofar as that initially CWA was not really consulted. And as a union that represents so many public workers that provide such critical services to your constituents, I do just think it's incredibly important that CWA is one that is consulted in the future. But we do appreciate this amendment. I do thank you for your time.

Chair of Representatives, thank you. I'll be brief. Scott Moss, professor, University of Colorado Law School, former director of the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics, which administered wage law. I'd submitted written testimony in opposition, but with the amendment, I just want to thank the committee. I think it reached a reasonable compromise that serves all the relevant interests. I want to commend Colorado WINS for achieving a long overdue raise for state workers who will be brought up to local minimum wages they should have had all along while the amendment preserves the local minimum wage rights of those who haven had any deal to bring them up to this level and haven had a similar CBA to serve their interests So I thank everybody for the reasonableness of this. And just to clarify, as everybody knows, any legislation or amendment takes a village. as a member of that village who helped write some of that language. The amendment means that the exemption is for those who are covered by CBA or at the employer with the CBA who are still in the pay scale. So, for example, Colorado WINS has a CBA. There are also temps at the state who aren't members of WINS but who'd be covered because they're part of the pay scale because the employer is still the state. In contrast, the University of Colorado or the state public defender is a separate employer without CBA governing pay, so they wouldn't be in it. It's a reasonable compromise. I want to thank everybody, the chair and the members and the sponsors for the amendment. Thank you.

Good morning, representatives. My name is Roy Barford, and like everyone here, I will try to be brief in the face of the amendment that's been made. I am a member of Communications Workers of America, Local 7799, and I work at UC Denver as a senior scholarship and financial aid coordinator. I'm very glad to be here today because I often have weekend plans. Like many of my coworkers, those plans are usually to participate in gig work or work shifts at a second job. I took this weekend off originally to celebrate my birthday and a friend's graduation, or I might not have made it here today. As a public sector worker who is fighting for the right to collective bargaining, I'm unfortunately familiar with decisions being made without my or my co-workers input. So I want to take a moment to thank the representatives who worked hard with us late until last night and early this morning to create the amendment L-001 and all of the folks who came together to send over 10,000 emails demanding these changes. As we've seen today, the solution to our budget issues is not sacrificing the workers who don't have collective bargaining rights at the moment. It is continuing to work with us and ensure that we all have a seat at the table for this bill and on all future discussions. Thank you.

Okay. I think it's on now. Good morning. My name is Teresa Cropper. I'm a Denver resident and I am an attorney at the Colorado State Public Defender's Office and also a member of the Defenders Union of Colorado. Today I'm asking that you support Amendment L-001 to SB-193 and to protect public workers who don't have collective bargaining rights. Hello, my name is Aaron Kopik. I am the vice president of CWA Local 7799 and an employee of Denver Health. I initially signed up to oppose it but again with the amendment super grateful for it One of the things I just wanted to highlight while I was up here is that there a lot of units like my unit Denver Health that doesn have the right to collectively bargain And so I think it's really important that when these broader conversations are happening around public workers and we have these massive groups like UC Health, like the Public Defender's Office, like Denver Health, Pikes Peak Libraries, another unit of ours that doesn't have collective bargaining agreement, that we are considered stakeholders. But yeah, that's all. Support the bill as admitted.

I'm so sorry if I butchered that Thank you Madam Chair Members of the committee My name is Andrew Sidley Mackay I'm a former attorney With the Office of the State Public Defender And an ongoing member Of the Defenders Union of Colorado And CWA Local 7799 I'd echo what everyone said About supporting the amendment And the concerns that have been expressed Especially by Ms. Tenbarge About the process that got us here I do just want to add I think that this process and sort of what happened with this bill highlights the fact that there are still many, many employees of this state who are outside of collective bargaining rights, including very low paid but essential workers in many of our units and other agencies that don't even have voluntary unions at this point, and that there should be an ongoing discussion and ongoing efforts to increase access to collective bargaining rights for all state employees. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jesus Loaiza. I'm a member of CWA 7799. Within that, I'm on the executive board of the Defenders Union of Colorado. I'm here. I was originally signed up to oppose SB 26193 as originally drafted, but I'm grateful to the sponsors for getting L001 amended. so that it doesn't affect anyone outside of the collective bargaining agreement. Yeah, I think just to echo what so many have said, two of the three branches of government are exempt from being a part of COWINS. That's the legislative and the judicial branch. I find myself working at the Office of the State Public Defender, an independent judicial agency within the judicial branch. And so we're hopeful that in the future, any decisions about us will be made with us. And again, grateful that the amendment limits the scope of the impact of this bill. I asked all to support the amendment.

Thank you, everyone, and I will keep this brief. I just want to echo what a lot of people have said. I was here initially to oppose this bill. I do appreciate your work with our unions. I am a member of CWA Local 7799 as well, Assistant English Professor at Colorado State University. And I just want to say I do support and urge you all to support these amendments L and just ask again that our unions are all consulted in similar bills going forward Thank you for your time

Hello, my name is Jade Kelly. I am the president of CWA Local 7799. Our seven unions are UCW Colorado for faculty, staff, graduate, undergraduate workers at CU and CSU, Denver Health Workers United, UC Health Workers United, Denver Public Library Workers United, Pikes Peak Library Workers United, the Defenders Union of Colorado, and Boulder County Employees Union. And you might be asking why after that avalanche of union all of us are together, why is a Denver Health nurse in the same union as a public defender in a steamboat, the same as a Pikes Peak librarian down working in the stacks in Colorado Springs? And the reason is that we're all uniquely screwed by Colorado labor law. And so I deeply ask you, along with my union siblings, brothers and sisters, stakeholder us, I know this was a late bill, but I think that is more reason to have pause before we strip away minimum wage protections from tens of thousands of public sector workers. I want to thank particularly Representative Brown for working with us and making sure that this amendment language could be stakeholder with all the groups and we could come to agreement. I also want to thank Colorado WINS for agreeing to that. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, everyone. My name is Diane Byrne. I'm the president of Colorado Winds. We represent 28,000 state employees. For my day job, I've worked at HICPUF for 12 years. I'm here to support the amendment SB 26193 with our partners who also represent state employees CWA 7799. so again first thank you all I will try to be very brief here I know it's very late and it's Saturday but yes thank you again I know this was a very tough budget year and we really do appreciate all of your help to preserve funding for state employees in a really difficult year and there were a lot of tough decisions to be made and thank you especially for all of your quick work on this bill and this amendment. So this bill and the MOU that accompanies it does help preserve funding for some of our lowest paid state employees. So for example, an employee who currently earns about $16 an hour will see their pay go up to $19.29 an hour. Plus the MOU does address compression with smaller modest increases for employees who make up to $24 an hour. which really helps the people who have been struggling the most here. And again, it is especially important in this tough budget year because the cost of living adjustments that we negotiated on our contract for July 1st were cut from 3.1% to zero. Many of our lowest paid state workers, so like a CNA who works in our state veterans hospital, also rely on safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and energy assistance. And those programs also had to be cut this year. So we're especially grateful to be able to target these workers who have been struggling for years with affordability in housing, food, and gas. And thank you again for letting us target these folks to help reduce turnover, keeping state services stable, and promoting the economies of towns across our state. So please support SB 26193 as amended. And thank you again for your work on this issue.

My name is Lauren Siegmiller. I'm a public servant. I'm a proud founding member of Denver Public Library Workers United, CWA 7799. I'm also grateful for the amendments. I did just want to say that many of my colleagues who work for the city of Denver are barely getting by on 1929, an hour. and I respect that there are hard financial decisions for the state. I do work with people every day who are choosing between rent and food and health care and so I hope that we are making space for them in the future when wage bills come up and just wanted to note that MIT's living wage calculator has both Denver and Boulder living wage for a single adult at $27 an hour.

Good morning, committee. I'm Elizabeth Haskell with the Colorado Municipal League. And I just wanted to highlight real quickly that the league is opposed to this bill, mostly because of the repeal of the occupation tax portion for state employees. Our municipalities that collect that, specifically Denver, will be losing $1.8 million on their next budget cycle because of that. And then we also have Glendale that has the CDPHE campus located within their boundaries, so they will be losing some revenue from that. And then Greenwood Village and Sheridan both have occupation taxes And while they this was so quick I don know exactly if they have any state specific offices other than if they have DMVs or if they have a CDOT shed or something like that in their municipalities. They will be losing revenue from that as well. So I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-001 to Senate Bill 193.

chair Brown thank you madam chair I move Senate bill 193 to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation

representative Velasco thank you so much madam chair and I do want to thank everyone that came to testify thank you to Colorado winds and to CWA and the sponsors for all the work that you have done. And I also want to recognize and elevate the pieces that you mentioned that are around lifting workers, the ones who are paid the least in our state, addressing compression, and also the gaps when it comes to our workers in the state needing to have access to those safety net programs. I also wanted to elevate that our aides are also state workers and their hours get cut in the interim. And also they're not able to lobby us because they would get fired if they do that. So it is very important that we don't leave them behind. and I really appreciate that I was able to have that conversation around supporting our AIDS as well with all the stakeholders Thank you Representative Soper Thank you Madam Chair And I just kind of wanted to land the record First I be in full support

and really just want to put out to every city and municipality that this is perhaps one of the more frustrating taxes to place on an individual that if you're going to work within a city, there's now going to be a pay-to-work-here tax when we have business taxes on top of that, sales taxes. So there's lots of ways to tax an individual, but something that's on their ability to practice their trade is incredibly mind-boggling.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.