Senate Appropriations [Apr 14, 2026]

. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you.

Okay.

We are live. Hello everybody. Welcome to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. We have a few bills to go through today, just a couple. Mr. Catlett, please take the roll.

Good morning.

I'm here.

Good morning.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here. Okay. I don't think I said we were coming to order, so I'll do that. And we've taken the roll and the first bill up, and we are the committee of reference for all of these bills. The first bill up is 1348. Mr. Vice Chair.

Okay. It is changes to broadband infrastructure cash fund. And committee members, do we have any questions for the bill sponsor? Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who would like to testify on 1348? Seeing none the witness testimony phase is closed The bill is moved There are no questions so Mr Catlett would you please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1348

Kirkmeyer. Aye.

Liston. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Yep, let me get there. Sorry.

No. It's in the fiscal note packet.

Okay, do you want to just say one word about it?

Okay. Committee members, are there any questions for the bill sponsors? Seeing none, is there anyone online or in the room who would like to testify on House Bill 1349? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlip, please poll the committee

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. That bill passes unanimously. Mr. Vice Chair.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be placed on the consent calendar. Next up, Senator Bridges, we have House Bill 1350.

Okay, committee members, any questions on the adoption of 1350? Seeing no questions, is there anyone online or in the room who would like to testify on House Bill 1350? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1350.

Kirkmeyer. Aye.

Liston. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

May I suggest the consent calendar?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1351. It is the healthy school meals for all state ed fund transfer. Committee members, any questions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Bridges, this is the one that transfers back to the school fund, right?

Senator Bridges.

Thank you. Okay. It looks like we do have some witnesses signed up to talk about this bill. And so I think they are online. Let me call up, yes, Ms. Meshke and Ms. Espinoza. Not there. Okay. Ms. Meshke, you have two minutes to testify.

Committee members, any questions for this witness? Seeing none, thank you so much for your time and your testimony.

I do not see. Are there any witnesses in the room? I see none, and there's no one else online. Yes, Senator Kirkmeyer.

Okay. Thank you for that. Committee members, any further comments or questions? Okay. Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1351. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Cloaker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Okay. Mr. – oh, did you have an objection or a comment?

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. All right. So we will not put that on the consent calendar. I don't know if I'm supposed to gavel that. And the bill did pass unanimously, and now we're on to 1352.

Okay. Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsor? So seeing none, this We are the Committee of Reference. Is there anybody in the building or online who would like to testify? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1352. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that would be placed on the consent calendar. Next up, we have 1353.

Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsor? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on 1353? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of 1353. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Colker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes six to one. Next up we have 1354.

Committee members, are there any questions for the bill sponsor on 1354? Seeing none, we will now go to witness testimony. I see that one person has signed up in person. Mr. Walderman. Okay. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wants to testify on 1354? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Colker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously. Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest consent calendar? Are there any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be placed on the consent calendar.

Okay. Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsors? No. Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on 1355? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1355. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

I move House Bill 261356, repeal local accountability system. There was a task force related to this. They did their job. We're going to save $500,000 of general fund.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move 1357. This bill eliminates the TREP program, teacher recruitment, education, and preparation. This is a fifth and sixth year program in high schools. Data in the state strongly indicates that extending high school time in order for folks to learn what they could be doing in a community college or a four-year institution does not provide the kinds of results that we had hoped for. This is similar to the ascent program. We are eliminating this program.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Russell Balderman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Russell Balderman. I would like to mention that my granddaughter would love to have been here today. However, one of the side benefits of this program is that she's a student teacher for the second year, which is helping our school districts. All of the students in this program are doing that kind of work. My concern is that we aren't phasing out this program for the seniors who this late in the year are suddenly faced with we've lost our funding we couldn't go do sports scholarships we couldn't go get a lot of financial aid because we're high school students going into our fifth and sixth year this is a surprise to them many of them would be great fantastic teachers and suddenly are faced with I can't go to school I don have the money we gonna lose some great teachers and the benefit that gets hidden in the funding It helping our school districts Please amend this find some funds and get those seniors one more year Give them time to plan for that second year of college. Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Abby Christian, and I'm a high school senior graduating in four weeks. Over the past several weeks, hundreds of Colorado citizens have flooded both the House and Senate with emails asking for reconsideration of the decisions to eliminate the funding for the TREP program. In addition, dozens of educators, school counselors, and families have submitted written testimony and shared their support directly with the legislature. I am grateful to speak today as part of that collective voice. The Colorado Legislature created TREP in 2021 to help address our state's severe teacher shortage. I signed on because I want to be a part of that solution. I want to be a teacher because I love working with kids. I also have a brother with autism, and that experience has deeply shaped my perspective. It has given me a strong commitment to supporting diverse learners and ensuring that every student feels seen, understood, and valued in a classroom. TREP gave me a pathway to turn my passion into a real achievable career. It provided both the financial support and the structured preparation I needed to pursue my goal of becoming an elementary school teacher. Now just weeks before I graduate, that pathway is being taken away. Not because I failed to meet the program's requirements, not because I didn't do the work, but because this funding for this program is being eliminated. For more than two years, I have worked intentionally and consistently to meet every expectation of the TREP program. I built my high school schedule around it and I applied to and was accepted to college based on it. I made decisions about my future based on the promise that this program represented. The deadlines to change that path have already passed. I'm graduating next month and without TREP, I am faced with uncertainty as to where I will go next, where there was once a clear plan. Eliminating TREP doesn't just end a program. It disrupts lives, breaks trust and sends a message that students who step forward to help address a statewide teacher shortage cannot rely on the commitments made to them. Colorado needs teachers and I am ready to be one. I respectfully ask that you shift funding to the TREP and keep the promise that you made to students like me. Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. My name is Stephanie Christian and I'm the parent of Abby, a graduating senior to be going into the TREP program. I'd like to note this morning that many families were unable to sign up yesterday to provide either written or zoom testimony because the sign up site was down for the entire evening. Despite that, the testimony last week in front of the House Appropriations Committee, dozens of families submitted written responses and strong support of this program. I would respectfully ask that you review all of those submissions as part of your consideration today. In addition, dozens of supporters have emailed members of the Senate directly asking for continued support of the TREP program. We have seen this body take thoughtful student-centered approaches before with changes that were made to the program last year, where already seniors that were on their path were allowed to finish. We simply are asking for the same consideration here. There is a clear path to do this in a fiscally responsible way. The bill asked to reduce the per-people allocation to a lower amount in the range of the 7,000 the community college offers, which would help significantly lower the overall cost of the program. In addition, the governor's office has indicated support for finding funding solutions including the possibility of utilizing available funds from the electric bus program. We have also seen funds transferred from other programs and other ways to support important priorities We are asking for the same approach here This is a small investment that ensures students can finish what they started and they continue on the path to become teachers TREP is not just a program it part of a solution to the Colorado teachers shortage. These students have already chosen to serve our classrooms and communities. Please consider amending the bill to allow current seniors to complete the program while adjusting the funding to reduce the overall cost. This is a balanced and thoughtful step to support students and reflects responsible budgeting. I would ask that this not be put on the consent calendar as we have multiple senators that are being looked at to provide amendments to this bill. In addition, we have already heard of the Reed Act and other appropriations that are being reduced where that funding could be shifted to fund this program for these students that are graduating. Thank you for your time.

All right, good morning. My name is Joanna Balderman and I'm the mother of Kaylin Balderman, senior at Eagle Crest and a future educator in Colorado. Right now she's working at Aspen Crossing Elementary as an educational assistant so she couldn't be here. I am here to ask all of you to help find a way to continue funding TREP for at least one more year for these graduating seniors in that graduate next month that have been counting on this program. Please remember that behind every budget decision is a student, a family, and a future. Kaylin has spent years planning her education around TREP, making all of her college decisions with the understanding that TREP would be here. In December, I personally reached out to the Speaker of the House of Colorado and received an answer from her senior advisor that TREP had been appropriated for for the following year. Based on that information, our family made life-shaping decisions. Kaylin was fortunate enough to receive admissions to every school she applied to, and academic scholarship money totaling over $186,000 to different schools. However, she turned all of those opportunities down because she believed in TREP and thought it was the best and most fiscally responsible choice for her. I am not certain, if you're aware, but TREP does not allow students to use any other scholarship money. therefore we did not apply for any scholarships at MSU Denver and now most of those deadlines have passed and she is left with literally nothing and zero time to pivot. Kaylin is committed to becoming a teacher and serving students in Colorado again she's more than a budget line she's a dedicated young woman who wants to teach and make a difference I'm asking you to please find a way to continue funding this program thank you so much for this consideration and your difficult work that you do on behalf of Colorado students, I'm just asking for you to go back and look at any line item that maybe you could transfer some money over to help support these seniors for one more year so they can get their acts together for the following year and apply for scholarships next year. Thank you.

Can you hear me all right?

Yes, ma'am. Hello, my name is Milo Houston-Islodic, and I am here to ask you to amend the bill to extend this program through the existing year. I've been dreaming of becoming an art teacher since middle school, and I was beyond excited to get to be a part of the teaching. cadet program last year. One of the most inspiring things that I was able to do was teach alongside my elementary school art teacher. I learned so much and it solidified my desire to move forward with becoming an art teacher. Although I received several scholarships offering me over $31,000 a year to go to another school, I committed myself to the T-REP program and staying in Colorado with my moms. I felt both betrayed and devastated when I found out that the legislature would be cutting funding for this program, especially at this time in the school year. I'm about to graduate, and it's like a scholarship was taken away from me without warning. I know of other people in my cadet program who will not be able to attend college without this funding. My classmates and I were born during the Great Recession, and throughout our educational careers, over $10 billion was withheld from K-12 education, which means my entire time in school, my classmates and I have experienced reduced resources, funding uncertainty, and program instability. This decision continues that pattern at the exact moment we need stability most. I want to go to college. I want to be a teacher. And you hold the power to make mine and many other students' dreams come true by amending this bill to extend the program for the class of 2026.

hi my name is lee heister and i'm here today to ask you to amend the bill to allow the seniors of 2026 to have access to this incredible program i've served as a teacher and principal in the state of colorado for more than 30 years this program was designed to address a teacher shortage which we already are experiencing in our schools today. Teaching is the foundation for all other professions. Our society would not have doctors or lawyers or legislators without teachers. Teaching is also a profession that requires a four-year degree but is low earning, so the cost of that higher education is greater than the earning potential. The program helps make earning the degree affordable, so new teachers are not strapped with crippling debt. Other programs, like the Federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness, have been ended, and it is important for Colorado to keep their local programs in place. This program has not been in place long enough to determine whether it has been effective or not, as it was started in 2021, which means our first cohort just graduated from college last year. I'm also the mother of a 2026 senior who has the dream of becoming a teacher and was to be a recipient of TREP funding in the coming school year. It is fundamentally unfair to the students that have upheld their end of the bargain to be stripped of this program without time to pivot. He also turned down over $100,000 in scholarships to many different schools, but chose TREP because he wanted to stay in Colorado, and this was the best step forward. We can't go back on those decisions. The core issue is not just funding decision itself, it's the timing. These seniors are just weeks away from graduation. They've already made college decisions and accepted admissions. I'm asking that you add this. Do not add this to the consent agenda as there are senators working on ways to continue this program, and Governor Polis has found funding.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So my question for you guys are here in the room. We use it we call this a grow your own program like in rural Colorado up in northeastern Colorado We have a huge teacher shortage It across the state Our community college used the T program to do this exact same thing and to provide 61 teachers to the rural areas. What are you guys looking for the impact in your communities here? because I hear Eagle Crest, correct, and others here in the front range. Is it a huge impact on you guys if we lose this program?

So I know for sure that at Eagle Crest and Cherry Creek School District, this program is growing. The Future Educators Program is growing. They're using, and they also tell these students, like, once you finish college, you can come back here and you're guaranteed an interview for Cherry Creek School District. I think my daughter's future educator program now has 30, and next year's, and the total between the two juniors and seniors has 90. That's how many kids are interested in this, and actually we're counting on this to happen. So it's a huge impact for all of these kids.

Yeah, I was just going to add, I think we're in Douglas County School District, the same thing. There's a large teacher shortage. And the nice thing about this program is you have educators who are going to have state certifications in Colorado to come out and teach. So Abby will be able to teach as soon as she comes out filling vacancies. We have an autistic son. And so special education has huge vacancies available. And so this particular program offers opportunities for these kids to come out. And I just say they're going to come out making $40,000 a year. And so if you're asking them, like, oh, go find something else, there's a very big difference. We had $40 million we spent to fund education for our people going in to become doctors who are going to come out making hundreds of thousands versus this young lady who would like to teach special education and will come out making 40. And this program makes a difference.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you all for coming today. Thank you for those online for coming in as well. and talking to us and thank you, Madam, for tracking us down. Some of you tracked us down in the hallways and I appreciate that. So I am going to be a yes for today. Did not know about the funding coming from the governor's office. I mean, we have or that he's been able to find, you know, I wish we would have known about that. That would have helped us in our deliberations. I mean, we've been working on the budget. I said on the Joint Budget Committee along with Senators Bridges and Amobley who are on appropriations here today as well. We've been working on the budget for over six months. So it would have been nice to know that information a little bit sooner, but I'm going to be a yes for today because I am anticipating that there is a bipartisan amendment, as you talked about, that's coming forward, and hopefully we can get this fixed on the Senate floor. So thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Christian, I believe that you, I believe this may come from your testimony. If it's not you, whoever spoke to this, if you all can just help me understand this, that the participation in this program does not allow students to use other scholarship money?

yeah so part of being in the TREP program you are a fifth and sixth year senior basically still in your school district so you still a Cherry Creek School concurrent enrollment so you cannot get federal or college money Like, for instance, my daughter also had opportunities to play volleyball in college. She gave up those dreams and aspirations because of the TREP program, because you're not allowed to be a collegiate athlete while you're in the TREP program. So all of our decisions were based upon this program happening.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There was follow-up, if I'm remembering correctly. It seemed like there's somewhere around 30 to 40 school districts that are participating. There are like four school districts, though, that are the most heaviest in participating. Those, I know at least two of them were along the front range. Other than that, my memory isn't any better than that. Thank you.

Amanda Bickle, JBC staff. Senator Kirkmeyer's excellent memory is correct. It's around 30. It went up a little bit and then it went down a little bit, but it's at about 30 school districts. And she's also correct. I think Cherry Creek was sort of one of the entities that started this, and it's, in general, the front range.

Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Kirkmeyer. Aye.

5 to 2. Next up we have 1358, Senator Kirkmeyer.

Committee members, are there any questions for the bill sponsors on 1358? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on House Bill 1358 Seeing none the witness testimony phase is closed And Mr Catlett please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1358

Kirkmeyer. Aye.

Liston. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. It's just the consent calendar.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1359, crediting state public school fund, credit to the state public school fund. this will take an appropriation of $70 million and appropriates it into school finance and will reduce the general fund appropriations by that same amount. Okay.

Senators Gonzalez. Aye.

Colker. Aye.

Pelton. No.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes 5-2. Next up, we have House Bill 1360.

Senator Kolker.

I do not.

Okay, we're going to have an answer in 30 seconds. In the meantime, are there any other questions? And also, I think we have some witnesses who would like to testify, so we can call them up. That is Mr. Kevin Bomber and Aaron Meshke online.

You have two minutes to testify. Give us your name and who you're with, and you're set to go.

You're welcome. Ms. Meshke.

Okay, thank you. Committee members, do you have any questions for these witnesses?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I still remember how to do this. Well, sure. Senator Pelton, I mean, for four years it has been, it's your fault, it's your fault, it's your fault, with the majority of the General Assembly led by the Governor's Office telling local leaders, you don't get to work with your residents to figure out how you are going to grow and where, where you put density and where you don't. You actually have 200 municipalities that signed up to opt into the requirements of the voter-approved Proposition 123 and said, we're going to do that. We're going to work to that because we believe in the outcome. We just don't want people in the statehouse playing city council member or mayor. So here's the one program that was making progress, was doing things, and it is unfortunate. I understand the budget situation, but this one is a little bit different in that not only did voters approve these dollars to help fund these issues, but they are de-bruced dollars and putting them back into the general fund. I think that creates a problem. Thank you.

Senator Kerkmeyer. Not a question, but just further comment. Appreciate the comments from the Colorado Municipal League, and appreciate the opportunity that we've had over the past years to have a good, at least I feel, a good working relationship with some of us. And I appreciate your comment about no money, no mandates, and stop the preemption and the punishment kind of things. I will tell you that when we're looking at this and with this transfer that the portion that goes to the Department of Local Affairs has been held harmless. We are not transferring or moving any of those funds away, and those are the funds that are supposed to be working with local governments to find ways to provide for more affordable housing. And it would be my hope that at some point we actually do work with local governments in true partnership, partnership fashion, not preemption, but partnership to develop affordable housing initiatives throughout the state of Colorado. It's not going to be the General Assembly or the Governor's Office that's out there building new homes and having to go through those land use hearings to approve those developments. Make sure that the water is there. Make sure that the other infrastructure, critical infrastructure is in place. But as we were going through this, the portion that we are transferring is coming from the Office of Economic Development. It's not coming from the Department of Local Affairs.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'd just like to say also thank you for your testimony. As you know, I probably voted against most of those initiatives to circumvent that local control. What I see out of this bill is a BS factor for affordable housing, for education. I mean, Amendment 23 said that we were supposed to fund education at a certain level, and then 2008 happened, and we cut funding there. And as the chair had stated, you know, it wasn't the proposition that this money could be used for other times of need. I would like you to keep track. You know, I'm not here more than two years. And this is something that we need to, you know, the voters did approve. This is, I think, a negative on the balance sheet for affordable housing going forward. And if we can make sure that in the future we can make this up, as the senator from Welk County said, doing the same, cooperating with the local governments in ways to make this up and make that affordable housing in conjunction with local governments. Just keep that in mind. Thank you.

With respect, I know you have things to do here. Thank you, Senator Kolker. Thank you, Madam Chair. we are going to keep a running total and I'll be testifying later on a bill where we're keeping another running total. Thank you.

Senators Gonzalez. Aye.

Colker. Aye.

Pelton. No.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes 5-2. Next up we have House Bill 1361 Senator Kirkmeyer Thank you Madam Chair I move House Bill 26 Pay for Success Program repeal

Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on 1361? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1361.

Kirkmeyer. Aye.

Liston. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1362, repealing the decarbonization tax credit.

Ms. Meshke, please unmute and you have two minutes. 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. I don't need to say anything on this bill, but wanted to express my support and ask for your yes vote on HB 26-1362. Thank you.

Senators Gonzalez. Aye.

Colker. Aye.

Pelton. Aye.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill would be placed on the consent calendar. Next up we have House Bill 1363.

Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on House Bill 1363? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1363. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes 5-2. Next up, we have 1364, Senator Kirkmeyer.

Oh, we're missing it over there.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing none. Is there anyone online or in the room who wishes to testify on House Bill 1364? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1364. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be placed on the consent calendar. Next up we have House Bill 1366.

Seeing none, is there anyone online or here in the room who would like to testify on 1366? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be placed on the consent calendar. Next up, we have 1367.

Seeing none, we will move on to the witness phase. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on 1367? Seeing no one, the witness phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of 1367. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objection? Seeing none, that bill will be placed on the consent calendar. Next up, we have House Bill 1368.

Committee members, any questions?

Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Limited Gaming Fund is a... I believe Living in a Gaming Fund is a cash fund that revenue from gaming goes into. And we're moving, we're eliminating a transfer.

We're eliminating an annual transfer of about $2 million from the Living in a Gaming Fund, which is a cash fund, that's going to the Innovative Higher Education Research Fund. What we have found is that it's just not necessary to continue doing that and that those funds then will go to transferred into the general fund, which is an appropriate expenditure from the limited gaming fund. Thank you.

I do have a question. Does this include prop bets?

No, no, no.

No. Apparently it does.

Okay. Is there anyone online or in the room who wishes to testify on House Bill 1368? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1368. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be placed on the consent calendar. Next up, we have House Bill 1369.

Okay, any questions for the bill sponsor? Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on House Bill 1369? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on who wants $45,000. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Goldkirk.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be placed on the consent calendar. Next up, we have 1370.

Okay.

Okay.

I think we might be able to have that number right now. Okay, great. Mr. Catlett

Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone, are there any other questions? Seeing none, is there anyone here in the room or online who wishes to testify on 1370? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Colker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be on the consent calendar. Next up, we have 1371.

Committee members, are there questions for the bill sponsors on this bill? Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on House Bill 1371? Seeing none the witness testimony phase is closed Mr Catlett please poll the committee on the adoption of 1371 Senators Gonzalez Aye Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice-Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be on the consent calendar. Next up, we have House Bill 1372, and that is Mr. Vice Chair.

Committee members, any questions on House Bill 1372? Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on 1372? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice-Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, we will put that on the consent calendar. Next up we have 1373, Senator Kirkmeyer.

I think that's on 1374.

Okay. We do have a number of people signed up to, well, committee members, any questions on 1373? Seeing none, we have a number of people signed up to testify, and so I will call them up. I think they're all remote, so I'm going to call up everybody. Nicole Montgomery, Jody Fountain, Jody Britton, Jack Parks Montgomery, Christine Miles, and Megan Grimes. and let's see I see Miss Miles so why don't we start with you you unmute and tell us your name and who you're with and you have two minutes. Great good morning senators my name is Christine

Is she there? No. Yes, I'm here. Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee.

which increase the statistics of adopted kids going to college and becoming a successful part of society. Again, I am asking that we pause, realize the impact, and review the statewide amount given to families to take a percentage from everyone versus everything from all families or even some of the families. For my home specifically, the lack of experience and structure could create an unnecessary dysregulation by removing case service fees, feeling a lack of support, and decrease his opportunity to become the world changer that he is destined to be. Adopted children who do not receive the support and structure have a trajectory to end up back in the system, repeating a cycle of more debt, prison time, a lack of self-esteem, and a lack of hope for the future. In turn, this creates a deep burden with grown adults who were once adopted that become a greater financial burden on the government and society. This pause and consideration will continue to support our children's needs, safety, and overall long-term well-being. I truly hope that we can come together and collaborate for the future and increase the success of kids that have a second chance in life. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Megan and I'm a single mom to two children that I adopted out of foster care last year. Before coming into my home, my kids experienced significant trauma, including extensive abuse and neglect. They lost years of what should have been a safe, stable childhood. Instead of building friendships and confidence, they were focused on survival. Today, I'm asking you to consider what it actually takes to help children like mine heal. I and many other foster and adoptive parents are doing everything we can to provide stability, but we cannot do it alone. The case services that we receive are not extras. They are essential. Before school care allows me to work and provide for my family while giving my kids a safe, structured start to their day. My daughter is also in softball and my son is in jujitsu. These activities are not just hobbies. they're a part of their healing. They're learning how to trust, how to connect with other kids, and how to feel like they belong. Children who have experienced this level of trauma are at much higher risk for future challenges like addiction, instability, and homelessness. These programs are the very things that interrupt those patterns. They are protective factors that change the trajectory of a child's life. Because of these supports, I'm watching my kids gain pieces of their childhood back, pieces that were taken from them. I urge you to consider what is at stake. Cutting these services does not save money in the long run. It shifts the cost to crisis systems later. Please consider amending this bill. These programs don't just support families, they rebuild lives. I respectfully ask you to protect these services for Colorado's most vulnerable children.

there we go i'm hi my name is jody fountain i didn't prepare anything and i'm just going to be very real and very honest um we have nine children in our home we've adopted seven and next month we will be adopting our eighth child a teenager and we're currently doing respite for two kids one is a teenager and one is a baby i didn't have time to prepare anything because we're caring for so many kids right now. There is a crisis with the number of people available to take in kids on a moment's notice or for respite when foster parents aren't currently able to be home and need to leave the state, but children can't. I spend two hours every day driving my kids to and from school because each of my kids needs a different type of setting. Case Services has helped our family to be able to say yes to seven kids through adoption, all separate adoptions. and next month it'll be eighth. We never imagined we'd have this many children. It just turned out that kids who were with us didn't end up having family and needed permanency. And I will be very real and honest with you, without case services and post-adoption help, our family technically lives in poverty. But with those services, we are able to say yes to these kids who had no family that could give them any type of permanency whatsoever. And we said yes because we could and because we knew that there would be help. We currently have case services on multiple of our kiddos. I have friends who are very fearful of what's going to happen in three months. Will they be losing their child care? Will they have to quit their job because they can't afford child care for their adopted kids? So I'm asking at the very least, I would love to see current case services remain in place until the end of the contract. Almost all case services are only good for three years. It is not good for the child until they're 18. Post-adoption subsidy is. But case services once they agreed upon with the county and the adoptive parents they are only good for three years and then you do have to go back and renegotiate So I would ask that you would at least consider honoring the current case services that are in place for adoptive families and for our gap families

Hello, I'm Jack Parks Montgomery. I'm testifying for a bill about money. The money is special. It is from the state. The state government gives this money to all of us and gives us opportunities to do special things. Some of the special things I do are karate, camp with foster and adopted kids where I get to mentor younger kids, and train club. Karate teaches me about integrity, self-control, and protecting myself. These things are important to be a good adult. People who want to take this money away is not okay. Without this money, we would be bored and even get in trouble. I say do not take my money away. Please vote no for a bill that would take my money, my activities and money to help my mom pay for it.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. Please move that and L-005. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move 1374 and L-005. This is the bill that I believe Senator Kirkmeyer started talking to, started speaking to on the last bill. This is the kinship care funding provisions and the amendment, as is custom for this committee during the budget process, this amendment would remove the amendments that were added to this bill in the House. Not to say that those amendments are bad amendments, but this is what we do as bills come through here that are budget bills. We strip amendments. So that is what L-005 does.

Senator Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you explain that, am I to understand that the L005 which is the amendment that was put on I sorry how do I want to ask this What did the House Amendment do

Thank you. The House Amendment would have required that notification is given to those non-certified kinship caregivers that the program dollars are ending, essentially. I don't know how long the notification was. I didn't really read through that amendment, but that's what it would have done. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. My name is Melanie Jordan, and I'm testifying in an amended position on House Bill 1374 on behalf of the Office of Respondent Parents Council. Over the last three years, our office has worked diligently with other stakeholders and many of you to increase support for kinship providers. research shows that when children cannot remain safely with a parent placement with Ken results in better outcomes for children than relative foster care. This bill impacts Ken who either choose not to or cannot become certified as foster parents. We understand the JBC had difficult decisions to make this year. We are requesting your support for the amendments to this legislation that passed in the House to ensure that it can be implemented in a way that can receive notice of these changes. These amendments passed with bipartisan support in the House, and they're supported by the Office of the Child's Representative. Specifically, the amendments would ensure that non-certified can receive notice that their payments will end on July 1, 2026, and providing them with information on how they may be...

Okay, you're... Sorry, it said the host had muted me. I apologize. I don't know exactly where you lost me.

July 1, 2026.

Receive notice that their payments will end on July 1st, 2026, and providing them with information on how they may become certified to provide ongoing support. They would ensure that CDHS continues to report data about non-certified KIN when they report data on KIN placements. This data is crucial to better understand barriers to non-certified KIN becoming certified, as well as how many children are placed with KIN without financial support. Finally, the amendments clarify that there are important supports for Ken set forth throughout Title 19 that would continue to be available and that this bill is ending monthly financial support, not all support for non-certified Ken. We ask for your support of the amendments to 1374 that were made in the House in order to ensure that this legislation can be implemented fairly and that we can continue to receive necessary reporting to make data-informed decisions going forward. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Christine Meyer, adoptive mother and intern with the source. I'm speaking as an adoptive mother. I want to address the easy cut math surrounding HB 261374. I'll admit I once shared the state's perspective. If kinship families want support they should simply get certified It sounds logical until you look at the barriers these families actually face The certification myth The state assumes certification is a simple choice families refuse to make In reality it a gauntlet Most of our dedicated relatives face insurmountable IDM citizen challenges or background check hurdles for minor decades-old issues that have no bearing on their ability to love and protect a child. Furthermore, we see widespread administrative discouragement. Caseworkers often tell families the process is too hard or not worth it because the case will be short-lived, only to have the child remain in the home for years without support. We also have a massive population of non-court-involved cases where families step up to prevent system entry entirely, yet this bill would leave them with zero resources to do so. The re-entry penalty. By removing the bridge funding established in Senate Bill 24008, you aren't encouraging certification. You are destabilizing the very homes that keep our budget from exploding. Supporting a relative at $20 a day is a 90% discount compared to the $135 a day cost of professional foster care. If just one out of every eight kinship families can no longer afford a child's specialized needs and that child enters the formal system, your projected $5.5 million in savings is instantly erased. The kinship care is the only thing keeping this system from fiscal collapse. You don't save money by cutting your biggest discount and ignoring the systemic barriers that make getting certified impossible for many. Please honor the intent of Senate Bill 24-8 and reject the cuts in HB 26-1374. Thank you.

is Jody Britton. I'm the Director of Family Services at Be the Source. We're a non-profit organization supporting fostering kinship families. I also spent five years as a non-certified kinship caregiver to my now adopted son and was closely involved in the passing and implementation of Senate Bill 24008. While I understand it, I am devastated by the fiscal realities behind House Bill 26-1374. I am here today to request three key amendments. First, I ask that you clarify that while counties may no longer be required to provide financial reimbursement to non-certified kin, they must still make reasonable efforts to support placements when possible. This aligns with prior legislation and allows for placement supports in certain circumstances. Second, to require timely notice to non-certified kin that payments will end, along with clear information about their right to pursue certification. Many families depend on these funds to maintain placement stability and need the time to prepare. Many kin cannot or do not certify and the devastation this bill will bring will create much chaos. The more time families, counties, and agencies like mine have to prepare, the better. The ultimate goal will be to limit placement disruptions that are bound to happen as a result of this bill passing. Third, I ask you to retain non-certified kin in the portion that addresses data collection. Even without reimbursement, it's essential that we continue to understand and track non-certified kinship placements to inform future policy and strengthen our state's kin-first approach. Without accurate data, this will continue to be challenging to do. These amendments help support our state's commitment to prioritizing kinship care for children, even while in a challenging financial landscape, and also preserve critical data for future decision-making. Together with the Office of Child's Representative, Office of Respondent Parent Counsel, and other key stakeholders, we have amended, we already have amendments ready and have secured bipartisan support in the House and ask for the same in the Senate. Thank you for your consideration.

hi my name is jody fountain and sorry i have a baby here um who's not happy with me um this is the reality of uh oh that was a big burp sorry about that that was very unprofessional um but this is the reality of um being a foster parent these days and i agree with um miss britain there's going to be disruptions there's going to be um kids who need a new place to go and a lot of us foster parents are maxed out. There are not enough of us. We took in a kiddo that we know that's been with us a couple of times last week. Her Kim placement disrupted. We found out yesterday, Kim placement cannot maintain her. And that is going to be especially so starting July 1st, when Kim realizes they will not get any reimbursement or help because they are uncertified. And I'd just like to share a real story with you. One of my now adopted children, children when he was younger and two years old, he was placed with mom's boyfriend as a kinship placement. Mom's boyfriend could not get certified because of something in his way, way past. And in our child disclosure upon adoption, we found out that there was a call made by grandma about two weeks before my kiddo was removed and had to be put into foster care and taken away from his kin placement saying that they didn't have any money for food. And I can't help but think about all the children that are going to be placed in this situation as the support disappears for non-certified in in the next few months it's going to be detrimental and us foster parents who are certified are already maxed out there aren't enough of us and we can't keep up with

questions senator colker thank you madam chair um actually for miss britain and uh maybe for Ms. Jordan, the discussion about certification, the rules regarding certification, those department rules, state law, federal law, do you have background on that? Ms. Jordan is shaking her head, so we'll go to you first.

2408 required that the state consider changes to our certification rules to allow it to become as easy as possible for Ken to become certified and to receive those payments. Those rules have actually not gone into effect yet. I believe that they will be in effect within the next six months, but the CDHS has implemented a memo that provides guidance and makes that certification process easier for KIN. That guidance also came from the federal government, and the federal government does have kind of a floor of requirements for KIN that includes a background check that happens for both non-certified and certified KIN currently, includes a home walkthrough, and just kind of basic safety requirements. So that's, I think, the goal of our state at this point is to get to a place where our rules, volume seven, reflect that certification should really be based solely on safety and that's where we're trying to get as a state. Senator Kolker. Thank you for following

Kolker for the question. I do think that there are some families that will not be able to

that is a disqualifying factor at the federal level is not something that can be overcome or that they can be certified That might include a crime from 20 years ago that the person has served their time for and it just is a disqualifying factor So those are the families that would absolutely not be able to become certified, and that this particular policy change will impact the most. We don't have numbers on how many of these families will be impacted, and it is certainly our hope that many of the families who are currently non-certified will be able to become certified. But I think that some families choose not to because of the kind of oversight and process that's required. There is currently a training requirement that is also a part of the proposed rules. So there are some additional requirements for certification that some families choose not to go through as a result of that additional requirement.

I apologize. I don't know it off the top of my head. Ms. Miles might have said $20 a day.

I can confirm. This is Jody Fountain. So non-certified rate, I believe, the current foster care rate is around 44, 55, and 66. It's dependent upon age of the child.

Correct. Non-certified KIN currently received 30% of the daily rate that certified foster parents receive. It was set to go to 50%, I believe, on July 1st.

Committee members, further questions? Seeing none, thank you all for being here. We appreciate your time and your testimony. Committee members, are there objections to L-005? Seeing none, L-005 is passed. Mr. Katleck, can you poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1374 as amended?

Kirkmeyer.

Aye.

Pelton.

Aye.

That bill passes unanimously, but I think we will keep that off the consent calendar as well. And next up we have House Bill 1375. Senator Kerkmeyer.

Okay. Committee members, any questions? Seeing none.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1375. Senators Gonzalez.

Aye.

Liston.

Aye.

Madam Chair.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be on the consent calendar. Next up we have 1376. Senator Kirkmeyer.

Committee members, any questions on 1376? Seeing none, is there anyone online or in the room who would like to testify on 1376? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee.

Kirkmeyer. Aye. Coker. Aye. Liston. Aye. Pelton. Aye. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously. Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar. Any objections? Seeing none, that would be placed on the consent calendar. Next up we have House Bill 1377. Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for that. Any questions for the bill sponsors? Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who would like to testify on 1377? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee.

Kirkmeyer.

Aye.

Pelton.

Aye.

That bill passes unanimously.

May I suggest the consent calendar? Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be on the consent calendar. Next up, we have House Bill 1378 and L004.

Okay. Committee members, any questions? Senator Pelton.

So the amendment in the House, so what L-004 is doing is repealing that amendment, It reverses that amendment. The amendment retained the repeal of the Behavioral Health Voucher Program, which reduces appropriations by $50,000 general fund.

Okay. Is there anyone online or in the room who wishes to testify on 1378? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Are there any objections to L004? Seeing none, L004 is adopted. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of 1378 as amended. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be placed on the consent calendar. Next up, we have 1379, Senator Kirkmeyer.

Seeing none, is there anyone online or in the room who wishes to testify on 1379? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1379. Senators Kirkmeyer. I'm sorry. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Colker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that will be placed on the consent calendar. Next up we have House Bill 1380, Senator NL002.

Hey, committee members, any questions on 1370? Where are we? 1379, I think I... 1380. 1380, sorry. Any questions on 1380 or L002?

Senator Kirkmeyer. We're repealing the whole office, so the $400,000 will not be appropriated and it's for ongoing. So there were no expenditures because the Ombudsman, the office, the selection board for the Ombudsman never convened and funding for the office has not yet occurred. So it just sits there. We don't like appropriate another $400,000. We're just not going to appropriate any ever appropriated again. Are there further questions?

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1381. Committee members, any questions on House Bill? Oh, you're supposed to say it is. Oh, this is the elimination of a required annual transfer.

I move House Bill 1382. This is a long one. It creates a special purpose authority, essentially to make sure that the insane amount of revenue we are receiving from purchases, primarily of the black license plate, do not count against our TABOR cap, but do still go towards the purposes to which they were those dollars were originally allocated for This is for folks with disabilities Committee members any questions for the bill sponsors

Hi, I'm going to stay in because these chairs are not meant for smaller people. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee. My name is Hillary Johnson. I'm the co-executive director of the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition. We're a statewide advocacy organization that ensures that people with different kinds of disabilities can live their lives. We are here today in strong security of this day. Many of you have been hearing me talk about this idea for more than a year, and you're really close to not having to hear me talk about this again for a while. If you would, yes. Not that that's a threat. We are strongly insecure of this for a few reasons. The first is that we want to ensure that the money goes to the purposes that the disability funding committee creates to fund. And there are two of those. The first is application assistance, primarily for social security disability insurance and also Medicaid. We are in dire need of more organizations who can do application assistance. Our organization does Medicaid application assistance, and we routinely get more requests for that assistance than we can actually, our capacity can actually handle. There are very few organizations who use Social Security application assistance that we do not. We have a very specialized area, but we get multiple requests a week from people seeking that kind of assistance, and we have very few places to send them. So creating the Special Purpose Authority will ensure that the money can be used for its original purposes. There's also oversight in this bill, so I think they'll vote yes.

Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you. I wanted to emphasize that this was done in partnership with folks who are impacted by the funds that are being moved in Special Purpose Authority here. there is some fairly strong oversight of this authority. It is essentially making it so that this license plate functions the way every other license plate in the state functions. If you want a Broncos plate, you donate to the Broncos charity. There is a plate that is similarly directed towards a special purpose authority, which is the adopt-a-pet, the shelter animal plate. This does the same thing, so we are essentially just copying that model. to ensure that these funds continue to go towards what they are supposed to go to, and the JBC can't just sweep them whenever we need to balance. So this is a preservation of those dollars for the purpose that folks are giving them I might be a no there I know I know Senator Colker Thank you Madam Chair And I appreciate this highlight of that bill. And note that there are other license plates that have been issued in our collecting funds that aren't being used. And that's something that we'll be looking at in the interim. just an FYI, one being the Columbine license plate.

Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I learned about this a couple years ago with the ag plate. The cost of the plate still counts against the Tabor cap. It's the rest of the money that will not, correct?

Madam Chair.

All right. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1382. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1383. It is a repeal of the Employment Support Job Retention Program. Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsors?

Senators Gonzalez. Aye.

Coker. Aye.

Pelton. Aye.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Thank you, Madam Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1384, direct transfers to the CDLE school-to-work program. We're not ending the program. We're just saying that the districts, one, can either use their own funds to send to the DVR, to the Division of Voc Rehab, or they can request the funds from the state public school fund to be transferred directly rather than passing through the district. Committee members, any questions?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I suggest the consent calendar.

Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1385. This essentially just changes how it is that we're allocating certain funds so that they are more clearly going to what it is that we are allocating them for.

Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

That bill passes unanimously. Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1386. This is the Colorado National Guard tuition waiver funding. After discussions with some of our higher education institution folks and working with the DMVA, we were able to kind of rearrange this and still allow for reimbursement of 50% of the amount required for the tuition for the National Guard folks. This has been hugely successful program and working to increase the number of individuals who are signing up to be part of our National Guard. Which by the way really help in natural disasters. So we should be thinking about that for this year.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1387. This is severance tax fund expenditures. We mostly are concentrating on the operational account and moving funds appropriately around to their, what should be their appropriate cash fund, appropriate cash funded for the program. And so essentially what will happen is there'll be $14.2 million that will be able to, I think that's what it is, transferring to the general fund from the operational account. But we are not transferring from the perpetual account to the general fund.

Senator Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to, for clarification and processing, the technical amendment that was put on this bill in the House will not be stripped because it's a technical amendment. Is that correct?

Thank you.

Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

That bill passes unanimously. Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1388. This repeals a program that was severely underutilized and transfers the remaining cash fund balance back to the general fund.

Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Colkert. Aye.

Pelton. Aye.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be on the consent calendar. Next up, we have Senate Bill 1389. Senator Kirkmeyer.

Okay. Committee members, any questions? Seeing none, we do have one witness signed up to testify. Miss, actually, yeah, 1389. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify? With that, Miss Meshke. You're up.

Thank you. Committee members, any other questions for this witness? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that will be on the consent calendar. Next up, we have 1390, Senator Kirkmeyer.

Senator Pelton. Senator Kirkmeyer, does this mean that the CDPHE would not need another FTE to look at this?

Good, thank you.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Yes.

Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. May I address the consent calendar?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1391, the safe drinking water in child care centers and schools.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. Committee members, any questions? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on 1392? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Corker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Are there any objections? Every year there's more bills. Public safety communications. Dispatchers. Man, we need this. Critical infrastructure for the state of Colorado. Okay, that one's on the consent calendar. Scotty, be me aboard. I'm with Mr. Vice Chair. I don't want to talk about it anymore.

Okay. Any questions for the bill sponsors? Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on 1393? Seeing nobody, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee. Senators

Kirkmeyer. Aye.

Lisbon.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be on the consent calendar. Next up, we have 1394.

it. It's called transparency. Okay, committee members, any questions for the bill sponsor? Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on this excellent transparency in motorcycle operations bill? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Colker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that would be placed on the consent calendar. Next up, we have 1395, Senator Bridges.

Bill sponsors any questions or any questions for the bill sponsors?

Bear proof or wildfire. Wildfire.

Senator Bridges.

Well, they do get into the trash.

Wildfires.

Are there really cents in there? I mean, it says 34 cents here in the fiscal note.

Okay.

Aye.

Aye.

Lisbon.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1396, the Disaster Emergency Fund changes. Members, this sets a minimum or maximum amount of unencumbered balance in the disaster emergency fund at $200 million, with any excess amount being transferred to the general fund, which was extremely important. And in addition, here we go again, with transparency and accountability and use of the funds, we require an annual report from the Office of State Planning and Budget to the Joint Budget Committee, which must include which disasters have been closed out and the amount of unencumbered money that the office transferred from subaccounts back to the disaster emergency fund. We're looking for accountability and transparency again. Ask for an aye vote.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Well, yes, originally it would have been general fund. It might have gone through a department first, but originally it would have been general fund.

Yes, Senator Korker. And this wasn't included as part of any reserves, right? I mean, this is just line item. I just want to double check.

So you're asking with regard to reserves to the reserve amount, the 13% reserve amount, 15 to 13% reserve amount.

Okay. Any further questions? Seeing none. Is there anyone online or in the building who wishes to testify on 1396? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, I'll be on the consent calendar. Next up we have 1397 and L002. Senator, Mr. Vice Chair. Senator, Mr. Vice Chair.

Senator Pelton. And the amendment, Senator Bridges, just said that you just, the JVC is supposed to look beyond that. Is that correct? Or what is the?

Thank you.

Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Listhen.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-13-98. It's the retail delivery fee revenue allocation. And basically what this bill is actually doing, if I remember correctly, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it save us the 10 point whatever million dollars of general fund?

We will no longer be putting 10 point four or nine million dollars, somewhere around 10 to 11 million dollars of general fund into the multimodal transportation mitigation operations fund. That does not mean that the multimodal transportation projects and mitigation options projects that were being funded or that can be funded can't be funded in the future. It just means they'll be coming out of the retail delivery fee revenue allocation as required in the first place and also out of any other federal funds that the Department of Transportation gets towards multimodal operations.

Anyways, that's what's going on.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Bev Stables. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 270 municipal members, and I'm here today to urge you to oppose House Bill 1398. The Multimodal Transportation and Mitigation Options Fund for local governments is not a luxury. It is a lifeline. It supports practical, community-based transportation projects that make everyday life easier, more accessible, and more affordable for the people who need it most. Seniors who can no longer drive rely on safe sidewalks reliable transit and accessible crossings to remain independent People with disabilities depend on thoughtful infrastructure to fully participate in their communities Reducing the local government share of this funding would directly limit those benefits for our communities. These investments strengthen our local economies. When people can move safely and efficiently, whether by transit, walking, biking, or mobility aids, they can access jobs, support local businesses, and stay connected. Multimodal projects are often cost-effective solutions that reduce congestion, improve safety, and deliver long-term value to communities both large and small. And importantly, this fund plays a role in reducing emissions. As municipalities continue to plan for housing projects and develop infrastructure to accommodate growth, investments in multimodal transportation projects are essential. They help to ensure that we have vibrant communities. Because local governments conduct the on-the-ground planning for development, it makes sense that local governments receive the majority of this multimodal funding. Since we are seeing deep cuts across so many priorities, a permanent reduction in the MMOF funding formula only makes it harder for us to develop the kinds of neighborhoods where we all want to work and live. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Committee members, other questions

Ms. Stables.

Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate your testimony. I don't see anyone else, so the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please hold it.

I'm sorry. Senator Colker.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Oh, I thought maybe you wanted to answer that one. What it is is to ensure that the, if I'm remembering correctly here, and thank you for your reminder earlier, Senator Mobley, it's so that Bustang can be funded.

Okay. Let's see. We had the bill ready to go. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer. Aye.

Liston. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, and L003. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1399 and L003. This is what I spoke about earlier. Thank you again, Madam Chair. To eliminate the general fund transfer to the multimodal transportation fund. And it is $10.5 million.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Bev Stables here with CML. I am urging you to oppose House Bill 1399. As you have just heard, MMOF funding for local governments is really critical to our efforts to create safe and walkable communities for all of our residents. And I do just want to emphasize how important this funding is for municipalities and the important work that they're doing every single day to support strategic growth for all residents. This is really about fairness, safety, and smart planning. It's about making sure our transportation system works for everyone. I urge you to protect this funding and continue investing in solutions that keep our communities connected and forward-looking. At a minimum, we would ask for this transfer to be limited to the coming fiscal year rather than being made permanently. And we should be really increasing our investments in multimodal transit but not decreasing them. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Senator Kolker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question on the transportation fund. Do we have a balance on this?

Transportation and mitigation options fund. This is eliminating from the general fund to that, but do we have a balance on that fund?

Okay.

Julia Bova, JBC staff.

Senator Korkmeyer. Why we're looking for that because that's over in the Department of Transportation and I'm not sure if they put all their other federal funds, multimodal federal funds or transit dollars into that multimodal transportation and mitigation options fund. But that is where the delivery fees go, and then my guess is it probably gets transferred over to something else over in the Department of Transportation. But anyways, there are a bunch of other federal funds that go towards transit and multimodal options. There are also not on top of the retail delivery fees that go into this multimodal transportation projects. There's the highway user tax fund dollars that could go into this. There's also all the other planning dollars. I mean, there are a lot of other federal funds. I know people don't ever think they're enough. I'm one of them, but there are a lot of other federal funds that can go towards multimodal functions or projects in our state.

Okay I think we have an answer So the 25 balance is about million and then estimated 26 is million and that's because there was the $10.5 million transfer annually. They receive about $10 million to $13 million from the retail delivery fee, and then there's a chunk that's sitting in there from ARPA funds that hasn't been spent yet. There we go. ARPA funds.

Any other questions? It's allocated but not spent.

Okay. I thought that maybe we found some more money to pay for some of the things. Encumbered but not spent.

Great.

Thank you.

Does anybody know? I mean, I don't know what it is.

Twenty-some cents.

Twenty-seven cents. I didn't know how much it was.

Okay.

Okay. So I think the witness phase is over. I don't know if I said that already. Are there objections to the adoption of L003. Seeing none, L003 is adopted. And Mr. Catlett, please. 28 cents. Mr. Catlett, please pull the committee on the adoption of

Coker. Aye.

Pelton. Aye.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

We will not go on the consent calendar. All right. Next up we have Senate Bill 14, I'm sorry, House Bill 1400.

Committee members, any questions? Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify on 1400? Seeing no one, Mr. Catlett, please. Oh, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee.

Kirkmeyer. Aye.

Liston. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1401. This is transfers from the unclaimed property trust fund. I know you're looking at this thinking, what the heck did we do? Let me just tell you. We're transferring in 2526 the $72 million from the Unclaimed Property Tax Fund to the General Fund. We will reduce $30 million transfer from the from the unclaimed property trust fund to the housing development grant fund down to 2.2 million, so a reduction there. And then along with the reduced transfer to the housing development grant fund, the bill repeals related provisions for conditional transfers from the unclaimed property trust fund to the housing development grant fund. And then beginning in 2627, the bill repeals transfers from the unclaimed property trust fund to the adult dental fund. So the JBC heard the legislative branch, heard our other 94 members, and we are repealing transfers to the adult dental fund. We're just doing it in a responsible way and easing our way out of it.

I had one question. Yeah. This money that comes from the unclaimed property trust fund, does that ultimately have to be paid back to the trust fund? I see somebody shaking their head.

Okay. Thank you.

Is that what it was? Well.

I thought it was $45 million. We're taking $45 million this year from the UPTF, and we will not be taking money from the UPTF in future years.

I thought there was some trigger that said that we should transfer that money or that we could transfer that money. No.

All right. Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. You may be thinking about a different bill that was a housing transfer bill that automatically transferred from UPTF when we were under the Tabor cap. That was passed before we had $1, $2, $3, which are like orders of magnitude more money that has come in for housing than is through that transfer. So, again, not a place that we should be going to take money. from the people of Colorado. Okay.

Good morning. Thank you. Allison Morgan on behalf of Colorado Bankers Association as well as the Independent Community Bankers of Colorado testifying in actual opposition to 1401 which would not be a surprise to many of you as Senator Pelton heard me yesterday afternoon in energy and transportation. We appreciate the part of this bill that you're stopping the raid on the unclaimed property trust fund and returning funds to the unclaimed property trust fund, we do object to the one-time raid of the unclaimed property trust fund with the one-time transfer of what is ultimately $72.8 million to the general fund. The unclaimed property laws were established with a clear and narrow purpose, to protect consumers. When a bank account is abandoned, a paycheck goes uncashed, or a safe deposit box is left inactive, those funds are transferred to the state to be held in trust to the rightful owner. And that does not then make it a petty cash fund for the state to use. And so we ask that we find other sources for general fund revenues and not the unclaimed property trust fund. And I would say that I truly do respect and understand the difficult state that you are in. Being older, I remember the budget cuts of 2001 to 2004. Senator Kolker, I remember the budget cuts of 2008, but we have to stop the raids on the unclaimed property trust fund. Thank you.

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. Although this is not the first time the unclaimed property trust fund is being tapped, This trust is not a pool of assets that is available to the state or legislature for spending. The unclaimed property being held in trust belongs to individual Coloradans, and if everyone claims their lost property at the same time, especially with the coverage this program could receive, we would find ourselves in a dire position. The unclaimed property trust fund has been entrusted to the state but does not belong to the state, so it is not an exaggeration to say that using any part of it is stealing. especially when funds are transferred without plan for repayment. These funds are not up for use, so I ask for your no vote on HB 26-1401. Thank you.

Thank you. And pardon my maybe lack of attention to detail on what was said before, but we're transferring money out. Is this corpus? Is this interest?

Are there comments or questions? Seeing none, Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1401.

Kirkmeyer. Aye.

Liston. No.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

And Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move 1402. This is the annual transfer to the Capital Construction Fund to cover this year, sadly, most of the Tier 1 repairs that we need, along with some of the IT funds, and the final phase of a project at CSU. Committee members, any questions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Bridges, most, what did we, I can't remember being on, I know I'm on the CDC, but what did we not fund? Senator Bridges.

That's what I thought. With the exception of the continuation project at CSU.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

Most of it, but not all of it.

That's what I thought. Okay. Nope. We couldn't get it all done. Yeah. Okay. All right. Let's see. Is there anyone in the room or online who would like to testify on 1402? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. And Senator Bridges.

Ms. Yule.

That was the important one. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. And the CSU. With that, Mr. Catlett, please pull the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1402. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Kirkmeyer. Aye. Colgert. Aye. Liston. Aye. Pelton. Yes. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously. Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar. Any objections? Seeing none, that would be on the consent calendar. Next up, we have 1403. Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1403, this is the IT depreciation lease payments. Basically what's going on right now, there is annual depreciation lease equivalent payments which are credited to the IT capital account. If those funds are unexpended or unencumbered, they have to be transferred to the general fund at the end of the year, and we're exempting out the annual depreciation lease equivalent payments from those annual transfers. That's what the bill does. Ask for an aye vote. Committee members, any questions? Seeing none, is there anyone in the room or online who would like to testify on 1403? Seeing no one, the witness testimony phase is closed. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of 1403. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.

Any objections? Seeing none, that would be on the consent calendar. Next up, we have 1404, Senator Bridges.

Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsor? Seeing none, we do have some people signed up to testify on 1404. So Mr. Nick Torres, and I guess that's it. Is anybody else in the room wanting to testify on this bill? All right, Mr. Torres, you're up.

Okay, thank you. Committee members, any questions for Mr. Torres? Seeing none, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate your time and your testimony. With that, Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1404.

Kirkmeyer. Aye.

Liston. No.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1405 and L007. Members, this is what I'm just going to call the annual cash fund transfers to the general fund because we'll probably be looking for more again next year. And anyways, there's a whole list of transfers to the general fund that are occurring from other funds. I do want to make sure that everyone understands that even though you might see severance tax on there, it is not severance tax from the perpetual account. And the reason I keep saying that is the severance tax dollars that go to the perpetual account are for those very valuable and extremely critical water projects that are throughout the state of Colorado. So there you go.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Well, this is the annual Bring Out the Broom Bill and Sweep. Shovel. The league is in an amend position on this, and while the state share of severance tax and perpetual may not be part of this bill, $46.7 million over this and the next fiscal year of local government severance tax are being swept into the general fund. Senator Kolker, you asked if we were keeping a running total on things. I was here for all those recessions, and starting in 2007 through 2013, when the state was in dire circumstances, And then later, when the state was in less than dire circumstances, the General Assembly confuses the definition of unencumbered and unnecessary. The local government severance tax funds energy impact funds and grants that go to particularly disadvantaged communities to help deal with mitigate the impacts of energy extraction as well as infrastructure projects. So about $500 million, give or take, over that period of time when you consider the local matches that go into that equate to about a $2 billion impact of infrastructure and jobs that have failed to occur in the state and parts of the state that need it the most because the General Assembly needed it more apparently. And so I'm back again. I don't know, Senator Kirkmeyer for the 20th time maybe saying, please stop taking local government severance tax money. Stop using the favorite word of notwithstanding and to change the legislative intent and let that money flow to local governments where it's absolutely needed to help deal with economies and jobs and infrastructure and especially to keep up with mandates that keep flowing out from the building across the street. Many thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Richard Orff here on behalf of the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado. We actually did take an opposed position, which has actually been consistent for the last several decades when it comes to local government severance tax sweeps. As I testified in the previous chamber, I think it's been maybe a little bit more than 10 years ago, I think Senator Ellen Roberts at the time asked the question how much money has gone out of that fund. And back then, that was around $200 million. I'm sure it's much higher than that since then. Senator Corum, it's much higher than that since then. Senator Corum at the time was also asking that question. There was another previous member of both the JBC and of this body. He was always questioning why that other states surrounding us that also deal with mineral extraction have such large funds. Well, the answer is because we keep sweeping them. And as Mr. Balmer previously stated, these funds are going out to parts of the state that are energy impact areas. The severance tax at the time when it was reconceived several times over was to go to these communities to help with those impacts where the mineral extraction are occurring. But most importantly for my area of the state, which is a just transition area of the state, is to go to help those communities when that mineral extraction would no longer occur. Rural parts of the state don't have the population density, housing density, sales tax density, and other things. And so the severance tax dollars do go to local infrastructure projects, whereas we wouldn't have that kind of industry-sensitive, industry-dense zones. zones So we do annually it seems almost come up to say we do resist and do object to severance tax sweeps especially from the local government fund We do appreciate the comment this is not coming out of the perpetual base fund for those water projects which are also critical to the entire state I do thank the committee for its time. To quote one more previous member of this body, Senator Lois Court, we do understand that budgets are moral documents, and these are trying times with some very, very difficult decisions. I will conclude my testimony. Thank you.

Yes, Senator Coker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Orff, you said that we keep sweeping these funds from the severance funds. Is there a tax difference in collection, though, percentage-wise, from other states versus us? What's the tax rate?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

of the energy impact dollars. It would be nice to have some of these renewable projects actually have to give into this fund as well. I know that these are just for oil and gas money that goes into this because there are some impacts. But what we used ours for was to pave certain roads to make sure, because our highways were in such poor shape that the oil guys were using the county roads in those areas to make sure that they weren't destroying their trucks and their vehicles. So but my question for you is, is that it looks like it's seven million dollars for this budget year and then or through this current year and then another 11 million dollars. Do you remember what it was last time?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Pelton, I think you're on the wrong line. 19.4 million for the current fiscal year, 27.3 for next year, 46.7. Oh, you know, it ranges from year to year. some years it was even more than that. In 2015, when the state was over its Tabor limit, the legislature blamed that on severance taxes and took $25 million before it got distributed to either DNR or DOLA. So like I said the running total is somewhere north of million now if you go back about 20 years You know and on the environmental side this is not part of CML amend position but I would note the Community Impact Cash Fund, which is not too far down the list there, is, you know, just a little bit, $10.1 million over this year and next year. And for folks that don't know what that is, those are environmental justice grants that come out of CDPHE. Those are for water and wastewater and canopy and clean air and all that. And I'm looking behind me. I'm like, where are my friends in the Enviro community? Because we should be outraged. This is funded by fines that get levied on permittees. And I don't know what this may say, tongue in cheek. If this were a standalone bill, you'd probably have a bunch of industry folks coming down here and saying it looks like it incentivizes the state to go out and find more. So there's more money in the fund to be able to backfill when times are tough. So the hurt is everywhere. I get it. but it's not just on energy-impacted communities. It's on those communities that are actually trying to deal with some of the environmental issues that we're dealing with right now.

Mr. Palmer. Madam Chair, I don't think there was a question there. Thank you.

I'm 100% sure the Senate Appropriations Committee doesn't want to open up debate club on using severance tax for digital trunk radio, but I appreciate the things that didn't happen.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is complete. And any objections to L007? Okay, can I finish this? All right, seeing none, L007 is adopted.

And revenue sources.

I don't think we know. Okay, we'll get you. Thank you. Yeah, we can figure that out. Okay, so I think the question before us is the adoption of 1405 as amended by L007. Mr. Catlett, can you poll the committee?

Kirkmeyer. Aye.

Liston. Yes, for right now.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I MOVE HOUSE BILL 26-1406 ALONG WITH L-003. THIS IS THE BILL THAT REPEALS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING, CERTAIN CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING REQUIREMENTS. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS SEEING NONE IS THERE ANYONE ONLINE OR IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY ON 14 AND L Seeing none is there anyone online or in the room who would like to testify on 1406 We came to L003 Yeah I did move it

as amended by L-003. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Kirkmeyer. Aye. Colker. Aye. Liston. Aye. Pelton. Aye.

Next up, we have 1407. Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1407, state money used to refinance ARPA money. This bill transfers money from several funds used to hold federal coronavirus recovery money to the general fund. It was in 25-26, and it

have 1408. Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1408. Essentially just requires that non-executive branch folks get their information to the executive branch in a timely manner so they can include that in what they submit in November. Any questions? Seeing none,

Yes, Senator Pelton. Senator Bridges on this. Are you using your microphone? Sorry. My legs are just cramping up. Senator Bridges, with this, are we having problems with the information getting to the executive branch on time?

Okay.

Okay, Senator Kirkmeyer.

so you're saying that i mean if you have one cubicle next to another cubicle and they're two different departments all they need to do is just stand up and say hey do you have a problem with

Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1408. Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair.

May I suggest the consent calendar?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I move. House Bill 26-1409. This is the marijuana tax cash fund distributions. And, yeah, within this one, we eliminated, it eliminates the distribution of the marijuana special sales tax revenue to local governments and increases the distribution to the marijuana tax cash fund. It also basically if there are any remaining revenue above the 15% reserve requirement that it would go into the state public school fund beginning in 26-27. And I do have, first of all committee members, do you have any questions for the bill sponsor? We have Mr. Bomber back. I think I can tell why. We all know why. I think I know what he's going to say. Mr. Balmer.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, Kevin Balmer, Executive Director of the Municipal League. Not to date myself, but when Amendment 64 passed and many of us were tasked with the statutory implementation, Colorado counties and the Colorado Municipal League negotiated a shareback of state sales tax to local governments. Part of that was to encourage local governments not to have as high of a local tax, which they had the authority to do. Whether or not that happened is for those to determine or not. But the deal was a deal. And when is a deal not a deal? Well, when there's not that many people around that were around to make it to remember that they did. And this is sort of the death blow to that shareback because, hey, just like the local governments that have retail marijuana, the state is seeing declining revenues. and has a lot of commitments that they want to make out of the fund. So I am not surprised to see what went from 10% down to 3.5% last year, down to nada. And, you know, good luck with the future, because there won't be anyone else to take it from after that. I would just say that it was an important negotiation back then. It did matter, and it won't matter after this. but I just thought for those that weren around then you might appreciate where it came from It not what Denver Westward called They call it a kickback It wasn a kickback to local governments It was actually an incentive to have lower local taxes that worked in a lot of places Whether or not that changes anything going forward, who knows. But I guess rest in peace, local marijuana share back. And thank you.

Just a quick question on do we have the revenue amount that the special sales tax revenue is?

Thank you.

Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Colquart.

Liston.

Pelton.

Aye.

Aye.

Oui. Okay, that bill passes unanimously. Mr. Vice Chair.

Who voted now?

Listen, Jawohl is German for aye. I'm slow this morning. That's no problem. It's okay. You're not expected to know German as part of the job. No, not really. Okay, so are we going to have that on the consent calendar?

Jawohl.

That's on the consent calendar. Next up, we have the big one, Senator Bridges, House Bill 1410. Danke schön.

J107?

Okay. Committee members, any questions? We do have Hillary Jorgensen signed up to testify. Welcome back.

Committee members, any questions? Senator Bridges.

I agree. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no further questions, the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1410 as amended by J-107 and J-112.

Oh, no, we didn't. I'm sorry. Okay. Is there any objection to J112? Seeing none, J112 is adopted. Is there any objection to J107? Seeing none, J107 is adopted. And now the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1410 as amended Come on! Come on! Come on! Save us a day. Senators Gonzalez I'm kidding Kirk Meyer

Colker

No Pelton

Mr. Vice Chair Aye

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 261411 along with L009. This changes to covering all Coloradans program. Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsors?

Thank you. My name is Vanessa Martinez. I'm here on behalf of COLOR, the Colorado Organization for Latino Opportunity and Reproductive Rights, in an amend position for House Bill 1411. Colorado made a clear policy commitment in 2022 through House Bill 1289 to ensure that children and pregnant people could access health care regardless of their immigration situation. HB 1411 goes against that commitment and against Colorado values of health equity. Cover All Coloradans currently provides health coverage for over 20,000 children and 7,000 pregnant people across nearly every county. These are immigrant communities who are overwhelmingly Latine and are already navigating systemic barriers to care and have the least options for health coverage. We know from community that this program gets kids vaccinated at a time when we're seeing reemergence of measles, and it keeps young people from having to choose between pursuing an education and covering medical costs. This is also the same community who is navigating heightened fear and uncertainty. We heard from a constituent whose brother's DACA status will expire this year. and who has said to his family that he would rather take his life than wait and find out if he will be able to access health care, be locked up, or be separated from his family. We know JBC members have had to make hard decisions. We also know there are still alternatives. We're here because we want to be partners in these hard decisions, and for us that means being honest about impact, inviting dialogue, and continuing to show up together. We respectfully urge you to consider amendments to HB 26-14-11. Thank you.

and ask for your support for amendments to the bill, like those made in the House, to mitigate harm to this critical health program for kids and pregnant adults in Colorado. The last-minute eligibility cap, which has no projected savings and which is largely unimplementable, must be eliminated from this proposal if it is to pass. Other witnesses spoke to the critical importance of these programs for the health of children in our state and Colorado's broader public health and health care landscape. I want to tell the story of how 1411 got to you and why, if you stand for equity or fairness, it must at least be amended. Along with many of our partners and organizational members, we have approached the last few months of budget advocacy with a pragmatic approach, recognizing that measured shared sacrifice can reduce harm now while we build towards a system that can fund the basic needs of everyday Coloradans. With all due respect to the hardworking members of JBC who face impossible choices, the bill you see before you without amendments is not measured and must be amended, so the Cover All Coloradans program is not made more difficult to implement, to serve a political and not a fiscal agenda. After initial cuts were greenlit to the program, amounting to 25% of the program as compared to an average of 2% of cuts across other Medicaid programs, JBC kept getting presented with new options to cut the program even more. After days of conversation and delay, the complex enrollment cap got added. There are no savings from this noted in the fiscal note. In fact, this adds to staff workload and to the over $3 million in tech change expenditures budgeted to make these eligibility changes. So as you weigh, this cap will not only be nearly impossible to implement, but adds further uncertainty for eligible families in a time where they are facing so many attacks. So as you weigh your vote on this bill in the landscape of the brutal cuts across programs you're presented with, ask yourself, why are you being asked to make disproportionately large cuts in a program supporting immigrant children and pregnant people? Why were further cuts added after JBC had a balanced budget proposal? I ask for your support for amendments and thank you for your time and leadership.

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. While I would have liked to see more limits applied to the Cover All Coloradans program, I was in support of the funding cuts and enrollment caps of HB 26-1411 until the changes made in the House last week. In this precarious budget situation, we must prioritize legal, taxpaying residents and eliminate programs intended for those in our country and state illegally, as this program expressly is intended. Programs like Cover All Coloradans are drawing illegal immigrants to Colorado and straining, if not bankrupting, our state. Evidence is plain to see in the massive discrepancy between the initial estimates when Cover All Coloradans was created and actual spending, which is an unexpected excess of over 600 percent. It would be great to take care of everyone, but that's not realistic. I would like to see more money taken from the Cover All Coloradans program's reserve programs for foster and adoption, teaching, veterans, or disabilities that are losing funding. At the very least, the original intent must be put back into HB 26-14-11. If changes aren't made, the Cover All Coloradans program will remain the way it currently stands, which is not affordable or feasible. So I ask for major amendments to ensure this program does not blow up the budget. Thank you.

Senators Gonzalez.

Kirkmeyer.

Coker.

Liston.

Pelton.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 261412. This is the healthcare policy and finance statistically sampling and extrapolation bill. It allows for extrapolation to recover overpayments from claims for services provided under certain, under select circumstances. It goes a little bit farther than that, but my question actually is, there was an amendment that was put on in the House that deleted the word allegedly, or alleged, and I don't know why we aren't stripping that from the bill. That is not a technical amendment, and I think we should be going back to what this bill was, what we did agree to as the joint budget committee.

It was actually, yes, it was L-001 in the House. And we weren't consulted about it, and it needs to come off. So can I just reverse it?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would move that a conceptual amendment that we remove or strike reverse L001, whatever is the appropriate word there, that was passed in the House.

Thank you. Dear Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, Senator Kirkmeyer, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. My name is Brian Davey. I'm the Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy for Action Behavior Centers and a doctorate-level board-certified behavior analyst. Action Behavior Centers provides applied behavior analysis services throughout the front range. First off, we appreciate all the work the Joint Budget Committee has done to support families and increase access to pediatric behavior therapies this year and in the past few tough budget cycles, especially knowing the daunting budget challenges facing our state. We respectfully ask you to amend HB 1412 to include the Office of the Inspector General Approved Statistical Standards and to align the timeframe with the OIG report. The Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing, HICPUF, has repeatedly said that this bill is necessary to address the OIG audit released in February. However, the bill does not fully align with the published audit. If the department is allowed to extrapolate, we need clear, bright-line rules for HICPUF on this. The OIG found misalignment and a lack of clear guidance from HICPUF, not provider fraud. Using OIG-accepted standards for extrapolation will ensure that the department and the providers are held to the same standards OIG applies to others. During the JBC discussion of this bill, before the long bill closed, there was agreement around using the OIG HHS method for sampling and extrapolation. However, the language was removed prior to introduction. We kindly asked that that language be put back in. For the timing, the OIG report is for calendar years 2022 and 2023, so we understand the policy goal there. There should be a two-year look back, not the four years in HB 1412. For example, HICPUF did not publish rules and guidance until 12-1 of 2024. Any claims after 12-2-2024 should have already been reviewed by HICPUF. I want to thank you for your consideration and happy to answer questions the committee might have. Thank you.

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. As seen in local and national investigations, fraud and health care spending can be an incredible expense. Waste, fraud and abuse must be discovered and rectified because we obviously don't have money to throw away and future fraud must be prevented as well. Before that happens, overpayments must be reclaimed. The fiscal note estimates that over thirty six million dollars could be recovered, but that's only twenty five percent of estimated overpayments. So obviously the state should be working toward one hundred percent of those overpayments. Now, as it stands, I'm going to ask for your yes vote on HB 261412 because we don't have money to throw away. Thank you.

No, you actually, that's perfect. Thank you so much. That's exactly right. So thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Daniel Unum. I am president of the Autism Legal Resource Center. I was previously executive director of the Autism Speaks Legal Resource Center I work on autism related issues across the country and I worked on issues involving Medicaid and insurance coverage of ABA in Colorado for the last decade I'm speaking today on behalf of the Colorado Association for Behavior Analysis, or COWABA, in support of amendments to HB 2614-12 to provide appropriate guardrails on use of statistical sampling and extrapolation in audits and recoupments in the Department of Health Care Policy and Finance's Medicaid Pediatric Behavioral Health Therapy Program. I want to stress that Coaba fully supports strong accountability and program integrity in the PBT program while maintaining quality and access to care. This includes ensuring that the department has necessary tools to go after bad actors. At the same time, care must be taken to prevent unintended consequences that can put good providers out of business. Extrapolation and statistical sampling are powerful tools that can result in recoupment demands of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars based on just a small number of claims actually reviewed. So accordingly, conditions on the use of these techniques are common. The proposed amendments provide these necessary guardrails. First, the amendments require the use of established OIG HHS methods for sampling and extrapolation. Statistical sampling and extrapolation are complicated areas, well beyond the knowledge and resources of most providers, especially smaller nonprofit providers, and ensuring that the techniques used are well-known, validated, and tested in the courts helps to keep the playing field level and the outcomes fair and accurate. Secondly, the amendments ensure that the department does not use statistical sampling and extrapolation to assert overpayments for documentation deficiencies. All PBT hours must be preauthorized, and this ensures that treatment hours are made.

In conclusion, a major report from OIG was that the department had failed to provide appropriate guidance. This shouldn't be compounded by not allowing this. We are in support of documentation or amendments that provide that documentation deficiencies are not used in instances where those deficiencies do not demonstrate that the services were not provided or were not billable. Thank you again for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Danny McBee, and I'm here today testifying on behalf of Woven Care in an amend position on HB 26-14-12. Woven Care provides interdisciplinary pediatric therapy services, focusing on addressing the unique needs of every child through evidence-based care. We're based in Colorado Springs, and we've been serving Colorado Medicaid families for more than 15 years across the front range from Aurora to Pueblo. We provide speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and behavioral therapy to thousands of children in Colorado each year. We greatly appreciate the JBC's work on 1412 to strengthen program integrity within the Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing. We support strong oversight and accountability in Medicaid spending and welcome reforms that improve transparency, reduce fraud and abuse, and ensure that families receive high-quality care. We want HICPUF to have the right tools to go after bad actors. Unfortunately, HB 1412 is drafted, lacks sufficient guardrails, and will hurt all PBT providers in Colorado. Our coalition is requesting two changes that will enable HIPPF to identify true overpayments and eligibility issues while limiting the unintended consequences created by the bill First the bill should require the use of established OIG and HHS methods for sampling and extrapolation As drafted the bill uses an ill standard and it's critical that the bill includes the same standard as used in the OIG report. Secondly, the bill should clarify that HICPOP cannot use statistical sampling or extrapolation to determine or recover overpayments based on documentation deficiencies. The OIG report highlight serious failures in how HICPUC oversaw and reimbursed providers. Most of the cases of potentially improper payments in the OIG report are the result of errors related to oversight by HICPUF and insufficient submitted documentation as a result of lack of guidance to providers. 1412 currently allows HICPUF to recover overpayments from PPT providers based on documentation deficiencies during 2022 and 2023, but HICPUF's own billing manual shows that the department didn't include session note documentation until December 2nd, 2024. We're more than happy to take responsibility for true overpayments, but providers should not be held financially accountable for requirements that didn't exist for care delivered many years ago. You shouldn't put the burden on children and families. Thank you. A lot of time. Thank you. Mr. Eleanor.

Okay, thank you. I think that's everyone. Committee members, do you have any questions? Seeing none, thank you all for your time and your testimony. We appreciate you being here.

Yes, Senator Kirkmeyer.

Okay, excellent. Are there any – oh, Senator Burgess.

Senator Kerkmeyer.

Okay. With that, are there any objections to the adoption of L-002? Seeing none, L-002 is adopted. And now Mr. Catlett.

Yes, sorry. Senator Colker.

regarding the adoption of House Bill 1412 as amended by L002.

Aye.

Colker. Aye.

Pelton. Aye.

Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously but will not be on this consent calendar. Okay. Yeah. Not on the consent calendar. Okay, next up we have House Bill 1413, Senator Bridges.

Okay. Senator Kolker.

Yeah, I don't have a canary for it.

Senator Pelton.

Senator Bridges.

Okay, I will just see if there's anybody here in the room or online who wishes to testify on House Bill 1413 Seeing none the witness testimony phase is closed Do we have a fiscal note?

Thank you, Ms. Conagraja.

Does everybody feel like they need to see the fiscal note before we can proceed with this vote?

Just so everyone, Madam Chair. Yes, Senator Bridges.

I'll give everybody a minute. And then I would like to move for the adoption of House Bill 1413. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee.

Aye. Kirkmeyer.

Aye. Liston.

Yes, for today. Mr. Vice Chair.

Yes, that bill passes unanimously. And we have an objection to the consent calendar, so we won't put it on there. And I believe that that concludes our work for today. Thank you, everybody. That was a little bit longer than we had hoped for. Try to do better next time. And with that the Senate Committee on Appropriations is adjourned Okay