House Finance [Mar 19, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

The committee will come to order. Please call the roll. Representatives Barone.

Present. My apologies, Ray. Brooks.

Camacho.

Garcia.

Gonzalez.

Hartsook.

Marshall.

Stewart.

It's okay.

Mr. Chair.

All right, folks. You might have heard me announce at the well that we have three bills. Witness testimony will be limited to two minutes. Panels with six minutes of questions given the late hour. Appreciate everyone's patience. First bill up is 1251. I will hand the gavel to Madam Vice Chair. All right. Who would like to get started?

Chair Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, committee. I'll be very brief. I've never run a license plate bill before. I swore I would never run a license plate bill. But when Rep. Joseph approached me about access to justice, on my swan song here, I said, yes, this is an excellent cause. You know how license plate bills work. we have a problem with access to justice for those without means in this state. This is a way to bridge the gap on funding. We would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. My name is Joel Minor. I use he, him pronouns, and I serve as the Deputy Director for Advocacy at Colorado Legal Services, or CLS for short. I'm testifying in support of HB 26-1251 because the need for free lawyers to help low-income Coloradans, veterans, seniors, and domestic violence survivors has never been greater. But our work is facing several existential funding threats. CLS is Colorado's oldest and largest civil legal aid firm. We celebrated our 100th anniversary last year, our 90 attorneys provide free civil legal services from 12 offices that serve all 64 counties. An independent 2023 study found that there was a 619 percent social return on investment for every dollar invested in CLS. For many years, Colorado has lagged behind in state spending on civil legal aid. In 2024, you took a major step towards closing that funding gap by passing the bipartisan HB 24-1268 and creating the Equal Justice Authority, which is a TABOR-exempt special purpose authority that makes grants to legal aid organizations like CLS. HB 24-1268 made a difference, but the need for our work still far outpaces what we can provide. CLS opens about 10,000 cases a year, but we still turn away one case for every case we open. And in the wake of federal funding cuts, CLS and other legal aid organizations face enormous threats to our funding. That's why we've come together to propose HB 26-1251, which creates the Equal Justice License Plate. Revenue from the plate will fund CLS and other legal aid organizations. The revenue will go to the Equal Justice Authority, which is TABOR-exempt. The very small TABOR impact list in the fiscal note applies to all specialty license plates and is thus unavoidable. The bill only allows the Department of Revenue to create the license plate once there's enough funding from gifts, grants, and donations to pay all administrative costs. So there's no cost to the Department of Revenue for creating the plate. We realize the fiscal note shows about $62,000 in FY28 and FY29 expenditures, but our understanding is that those are plate production fees that are passed on to the people who purchase the plates and will not result in any net cost to the state. Thank you, and I urge you to vote yes on HB 26-1251.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Elisa Overall. I use she, her pronouns, and I am the director of the Colorado Access to Justice Commission. I appreciate the chance to share why I believe so much in House Bill 1251. Every day, our commission focuses on closing the justice gap. That is the real divide between people's civil legal issues and the resources available to help them. We also help administer the Equal Justice Authority, the fund this bill would support, and we're so proud of the impact it makes. So I'm here not just as a supporter of the bill, but as someone who sees firsthand what the dollars mean for the people and communities across Colorado. But today I want to make the case that funding legal aid is not just the right thing to do it is the smart thing to do When someone loses their house because they couldn navigate an eviction alone it costs the state money in emergency shelters Medicaid and social services When a survivor of domestic violence can't access legal help to get a protection order or sort out custody, those consequences can ripple for a lifetime, including costs to the juvenile system and our criminal justice system. legal aid solves problems early before they grow into bigger or more costly issues down the road every dollar invested in civil legal aid returns many times the amount in avoided public costs and when people have help in court even in simple cases the process is much faster and easier for everyone easing the load on our already stretched judicial system I respectfully ask for your support and I'm happy to answer any questions.

I'm sorry. I apologize. My name is Ellen Starr, and I am representing myself, and I was a former client of Colorado Legal Services. And I am speaking in support of House Bill 26-1251 to create a special license plate and raise money for legal aid. We have many organizations in Colorado that have license plates, and I think this one for legal aid is a necessity. As was mentioned previously about funds for many people like myself who are senior citizens or who have been through some form or another of a need where they need legal help, these license plates will help. For example, let's say you're driving down the road and you see the bumblebee one, and you're wondering why you see a flower. Well, imagine driving down the one and seeing the one with the justice symbol. It will be an impact, and such an impact is needed right now. This bill is about people who are seeking and asking for help. Attorneys at Colorado Legal Services, they support veterans who are at risk of losing their home. They support seniors like myself who are at risk of losing their home due to the economy. And then they support domestic violence. And domestic violence is not limited to mom and dad. It's about the children. And there are many people like myself who are seniors, and we do slip through the crack. And so do the children. But CLS helps them with their public benefits. They help us fight scams. They help with other needs. They help with health or guidance to the right different people that can help them. I myself had a personal experience with CLS before they started helping me. I was worrying constantly. Sorry. And I was overwhelmed by the system. I was facing legal battle and it not easy to fight Thank you CLS for being here Thank you very much Ms Dard

no

thank you Madam Chair I just want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all those who testify on this bill to the legal Colorado legal services and also we're doing this bill because justice matters regardless of income and Miss Helen as you've heard her pleas for this particular bill. She's the reason why we're doing this bill and we ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Committee members, any final comments where we vote? Rep. Camacho.

Rep. Marshall.

All right. Brett Brooks?

All right. Any further comments? Seeing none. Proper motion will route this to the Appropriations Committee. Rep. Woodrow.

Second.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Rep. Garcia and I are here to present House Bill 1274. It is a practical reform to strengthen the state's partnership with nonprofit service provider that builds on bipartisan legislation from 2021. It expands permissive legislative authority to advance up to 25% of a contract's value up front when state agencies determine it is appropriate. Right now, most nonprofit grantees awarded state grants must front program costs and wait for reimbursement from the state for expenses related to a grant contract. For smaller organizations, that can mean delaying services, taking on debt, or even declining state funding altogether. These challenges deter many nonprofits from pursuing state grants. We have heard stories of small nonprofits waiting months for reimbursement from the state requiring organizational leadership to sometimes take on personal financial risk in order to make cash flow. In 2021, HB 1247 was passed with bipartisan support. This bill granted CDPHE the ability to provide up to 25% of a contract as an upfront payment. Since then, there have been at least six grant programs that have offered advance payments to nonprofits applying for those state grants. Other departments currently have to navigate an uncertain and inconsistent waiver process through the state auditor's office in order to provide advance payments to nonprofits awarded state grants. And as far as we know, CPW and Oedit are the only ones that have grant programs that offer advance payment. This bill is an easy fix to expand the permission granted to CDPHE to provide up to 25 to all state agencies

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I just briefly want to say what the bill does and doesn't do. So this bill does not mandate 25% up front like I tried last year. a state agency to provide. What this says, it just gives permission. It says you can, if you want to, if the organization passes its muster, then yes, we can trust this organization with 25% up front. It applies only to nonprofit organizations that meet statutory criteria and provide written proof of nonprofit status. It limits the use of advanced funds expenses incurred in connection only with the contract, So there cannot be any use of misappropriated funds. And it maintains all existing reporting requirements and oversight provisions. This also preserves the existing waiver authority. And this also requires a state controller to provide a written explanation if a waiver request is denied. So the bill does not make, again, mandating advance payments. It does not eliminate the reimbursement model, so that still exists. It does not change auditing, reporting, or fiscal accountability requirements. It does not increase contract amounts or expand program eligibility, and it does not disturb agencies already providing advanced payments. Why does this matter? Because it improves service delivery. When organizations are able to use those upfront payments to start the service that they have been commissioned to do by the state, then they are meeting the needs and the directives from the state. It expands access to state funding. Small and community-rooted nonprofits often lack the large reserves or lines of credit. This bill ensures access to state grants is based on impact and capacity, not on cash flow. And it supports equity. Organizations serving historically underinvested communities are disproportionately harmed by reimbursement delays. Advanced payments help level the playing field. And it reduces administrative burden. When agencies and grantees aren't scrambling to manage delayed reimbursements, it reduces extensions, amendments, emergency processing. Colorado has already demonstrated that this model works through House Bill 21-1247. That legislation allowed CDPHE to provide up to 25% of grant funding in advance without a fiscal note or new infrastructure and has seen positive results. This bill similarly allows agencies to use existing systems in discretion. House Bill 26-12-74 strengthens accountability, supports nonprofit partners all across the state, and helps ensure that when the state funds a service, the service can begin immediately while not leaving nonprofits waiting for funds. This is a common sense reform that improves efficiency, equity, and service delivery within our existing infrastructure, and we urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What specific mechanisms will be used to actively monitor and mitigate taxpayer risk if grantees underperform, fail, or are later found noncompliant?

Thank you. Thank you for the really important question, Representative Gonzalez. is there's already currently within our structures of state grants a monthly reimbursement process that comes with a really arduous scope of work. So what ends up happening is with nonprofits, they have to report on their funds and use as it matches with the scope of work that was already approved within the contract as well as submit the expenses and all the receipts and all of the proof of expense So that way, if there is anything that doesn't look correct, then the state doesn't reimburse for it. There is also mechanisms in every contract that if a organization is found to not being compliant, there is opportunity for curing so they can actually, they can set up a plan like You have to get on track, or they can cancel the contract.

Mr. Chair, may I just briefly dialogue? I do think it will be faster. Yep. Thank you for bringing the bill. I really do appreciate it. I just want to talk about the discretionary piece. So is there a checklist? Is there best practices for the discretionary decision whether or not to give the 25% up front? The reason why I'm asking is because I do see a potential to get into crosswise with a grantee who says you made an arbitrary and capricious decision. So I'm wondering, does this bill contemplate that? Can you say something to alleviate that concern?

So the bill does not actually lay out what those mechanisms are because the state already has a process that it can adopt through the waiver process. And so part of that is also when you are going through the process of procurement to even be granted a state grant, you have to show that you can already handle state funds at whatever level you're getting, that you have sound, solid financial practices. And then you go through the process of a justification of what exactly it means to get the grant funds. So because there's already these processes in place and every department has a process set up for if an organization wants to submit a waiver, we're not outlining a new process in this bill that they can use the current systems that already exist in the state.

I still have just some small concern that we live in a world of finite resources, and if you're going to make a waiver decision for one person or one group because you can give 25% there, there will be a tradeoff, and I just would caution whoever's going to use this in the future to be really thoughtful about that. A tradeoff on what? If there's only so much money, then you can only give 25% up front to so many folks, and if there's lots of grantees that are asking for this and there has to be some structured process, I guess is what I'm getting at. I understand what you're saying, but the reality is our state is given, these aren't just grants across the board, and if we get more money, we can keep the grant going. These grants are only approved if the state has already allocated those funds. So the funds are already allocated. They are already earmarked. So if you are giving a 25% upfront grant, you're not saying hopefully we have enough because the state has already earmarked those funds for that X, Y, or G grant programs across the agencies. And maybe this isn't really a concern. I just, in our current budget environment, I know we frequently go through our programs and see what money is being used. So it's just a concern. But I appreciate your answer.

I just have to ask this one. How much of this bill could potentially benefit Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition? None of it, actually. None of this bill wouldn't help the Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition in any way.

Sure. Fair enough.

Yeah. Perfect.

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of House Bill 26-1274. My name is Marco Dorado, and I'm the Managing Director of Communities Lead, Communities Thrive, a statewide coalition of small nonprofits working to improve how the state partners with the organizations, delivering essential services in our communities. Last summer, CLCT held listening sessions and one-on-one conversations with more than 40 nonprofit leaders across Colorado, organizations serving rural communities, youth, seniors, immigrant families, LGBTQ plus folks, communities of color, and people experiencing housing instability. These conversations helped us better understand how state funding systems work in practice for nonprofits delivering services on the front lines. One of the most consistent themes we heard was the challenge created by state reimbursement-based grants. Leaders described having to front weeks or months of program costs before receiving payment from the state. Some organizations reported delaying services while waiting for reimbursement. Others described draining emergency reserves. In one case, a nonprofit leader said that they had to open a personal line of credit just to cover payroll while waiting for reimbursement from a state grant. These are organizations that want to partner with the state to serve their communities, but the current system makes that partnership financially risky or even inaccessible. That's why the advanced payment option in HB 26-1274 is so important. It builds on bipartisan authority granted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in 2021 and extends that same flexibility across state government. This legislation preserves existing oversight and accountability requirements while giving state agencies the flexibility to structure payments to better support their nonprofit partners and the programs they deliver. By allowing an advance payment when appropriate, agencies can reduce delays, improve program implementation and strengthen the partnerships they rely on to carry state-funded services. Nonprofits serve as essential partners to the state, connecting communities to the services they need. When that partnership is adequately supported through responsive funding mechanisms, programs launch on time, staff turnover decreases, and communities experience fewer service disruptions, strengthening outcomes for both the state and the people these programs are designed to serve. On behalf of CLCTR, a coalition of organizations across Colorado, we respectfully urge you to support House Bill 26-1274. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Sarah Dutcher, and I currently work as the Senior Philanthropy Lead at Caring for Colorado Foundation. We are a statewide health equity funder. I am here today in support of House Bill 26-1274. Caring for Colorado currently serves as the regional access partner for the Northeast Region for the Department of Local Affairs Small Nonprofit Infrastructure Grant Program, created in 2022, which invested $33.1 million in ARPA funding into small community-based nonprofits. One important feature of this program was the ability for approved nonprofits to receive a percentage of their grant funding up front. them to begin their work immediately. This adjustment to the traditional reimbursement based funding plan was made because what we saw was simple but important. Many small nonprofits cannot carry the upfront costs of public contracts and then wait to be reimbursed. Even when they are fully capable of delivering results, cash flow can become a barrier to implementation. That means delayed hiring, delayed services, added administrative burden, and in some cases a disruption for their communities. Combined technical assistance plus upfront funding to these nonprofits to implement their projects as designed without interruptions. This approach actually mirrors how Caring for Colorado makes our own grants through a model known as trust-based philanthropy. Think about it this way. If you hired a contractor to build a house, you would not expect them to cover all the upfront costs before getting paid. In many ways, nonprofits are entering into a contract with the state to deliver services to your constituents. If we want those services delivered successfully, we need to set up the nonprofits for success. Importantly, our experience shows that advanced payments do not increase risk. Most nonprofits are deeply accountable to their communities. When challenges arise, nonprofits typically reach out quickly for guidance so they can stay on track. Nonprofits are not asking for additional funding. They're asking to not finance public service delivery out of their own limited reserves. They're asking to be paid in a way that allows them to do the work they have already been trusted and contracted to deliver. I respectfully urge your support of House Bill 26-1274. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Chair and members of committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on House Bill 26-1274, State Agency Payments to Grant Recipients. My name is Mackenzie Klein, and I'm also Ms. Front Range. I'm a community mentor specialist, and I'm here today testifying on behalf of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Colorado and support on this bill. For many organizations, including small community-rooted nonprofits, delays caused by the current reimbursement-based grant-making create serious barriers. Without reserves or access to credit, nonprofits delay services, take on debt, or decide not to pursue state grants altogether. Over the past six years working on the front lines with young people, families, and volunteers, I've learned that people are complex and effective nonprofit work requires flexibility. This bill would reduce barriers by preventing service disruptions and staff turnover and allow organizations to focus on community impact. Here at Big Brothers Big Sisters, we have a saying, it takes little to be big. By voting yes on House Bill 1274, this will have a big impact on our economy and our collective future. Every dollar that is invested in community building returns $3 in public benefit through reduced spending on criminal justice, social services, and remedial education. 96% of youth we serve report that they are confident they can say no to drugs, violence, and skipping school. 84% of youth have better grades, academic goals, and confidence. Supporting small nonprofits expands access to critical services across all four corners of Colorado, ensuring that communities, no matter how rural or underserved, are not left behind. There's no reason a large organization like Big Brothers Sisters should not stand up as a voice for the entire nonprofit sector, helping elevate standards and opportunities for smaller organizations that share the same mission, which is to ignite the power and promise of youth. Please vote yes on House Bill 1274 and thank you for the opportunity to testify Thank you Please hold for questions Thank you Mr Chairman Good evening members of the committee

Thank you. Please hold for questions. We're going to go online to Mark Lester. Mr. Lester, if you could unmute yourself, floor is yours for two minutes.

Thank you. Committee, any questions for this panel? Thank you all for staying so late. Appreciate it. Thank you. If we could call up our next panel of witnesses, they are all appearing remote. Max Gibson, Alex McHenry, Renee Bernhard, Janelle Ramzil, and Daza Creel. We'll start with Ms. Creel. If you can unmute yourself, state who you're testifying on behalf of. Floor is yours for two minutes.

The demand for this type of funding has far outpaced our expectations, and in the first year, we plan to execute four loans, and we've already received 21 applications. Given the demand, we anticipate to far exceed our goal of four loans. House Bill 1274 helps to address these challenges by standardizing practices, expanding access to grants and contracts for small and community-rooted nonprofits, and preventing program service disruptions. We recognize that our efforts are not enough to meet the sector's needs, and policy changes are essential to ensure that nonprofit organizations are able to achieve their missions. This bill provides an opportunity to change the state approach by giving state agencies the option to disperse up to 25 of nonprofit grants and contracts up front enabling organizations to begin the work sooner and remain financially solvent Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 1274

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Stuart Jenkins, and I serve as the Executive Director of the Calvo Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs, representing the 17 club organizations across our state, I'm here to express our strong support for House Bill 1274. At Boys and Girls Clubs, we work every day to ensure that young people, especially those who need us most, have access to safe, supportive, and enriching environments during out-of-school time. State grant funding plays a critical role in making that possible. The way those funds are administered is critical to the day-to-day operations for non-profits like ours, local governments, and other community-based organizations on the ground. Navigating these processes that the sponsors described are exactly why intermediary organizations like the Alliance exist. We help reduce administrative burden and financial burden so smaller nonprofits can focus on serving youth, and we expand access to state funding for clubs, especially in rural communities, that may not otherwise have the capacity to navigate complex grant requirements or front significant costs. Even with that support, the current system still creates real barriers. Many of our clubs operate on very lean budgets. They don't have large reserves or lines of credit. When grants are structured as reimbursement-based or when there are delays in reimbursement, clubs have been in the position of taking on significant program costs for months at a time. In fact, some of our organizations have experienced reimbursement delays of up to three months, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars in expenses they've had to carry. While those moments are thankfully rare, that kind of financial strain doesn't just affect balance sheets. It directly impacts our ability to hire staff, keep programs running, and serve kids and families without interruption. House Bill 1274 offers a practical, thoughtful, and flexible solution. By improving how and when these funds are distributed, including the use of advanced payments, this bill helps ensure that nonprofits can focus on delivering high-quality services rather than managing cash flow uncertainty. This is important right now as out-of-school time programs face potential funding cuts and making sure that existing state investments are deployed effectively and efficiently is more important than ever. Thank you for your time this evening and happy to take any questions.

Hi there. I'm Max Gibson. I'm the executive director of the San Luis Valley Local Foods Coalition. We do a lot of work for the state that we'd love to have the state do instead, but isn't here in the Sandways Valley doing it. So we manage economic development. We help keep small grocery stores open. We do farmer training, soil health programs, nutrition education. um we're essentially four different non-profits under one roof because in you know on in poor rural colorado we've learned that we have to stand together in order to deal with exactly these kinds of barriers where one program can shuffle money to to another um because none of us have enough money for a single program to to kick off right off the bat um we have a two million dollar budget and it's not unusual for us to have fifty thousand dollars from the state just waiting to come in that's okay in the middle of a program but when we're starting something off it doesn't work it's each program has its own requirements it takes us to to figure them out. We usually have to do some back and forth with our program officer, and it could easily be three months before we get our first payment. And not having an advance just encourages us to be slow and ineffective and put staff on furlough, and it just creates dysfunction in how we provide for our communities. And on the rare occasion that we do have an advance, it's awesome because we can just immediately get to work and we know that the state is not going to get caught up on some kind of snag about how exactly we put our first invoice in we just know okay we can get started and that's going to buy us the time to to figure out how the rest of the program works and do our important work thank you please hold for questions we'll go to our next

My name is Alex McHenry. I'm here on behalf of Community Resource Center, or CRC. We're a statewide nonprofit that serves Colorado by supporting other nonprofits and community leaders across the state, particularly in rural and under-resourced communities. In 2025, we served over 1,000 unique nonprofits in 63 different counties, and the majority of those nonprofits have budgets of under a million dollars. So I am here in support of House Bill 1274. As has already been emphasized, Colorado relies heavily on nonprofits to deliver essential public services, yet for most state grants, they require reimbursement, meaning nonprofits must cover costs upfront and wait weeks or months, as has been mentioned, to be paid. At CRC, we have firsthand experience with this. And even as an established organization, navigating reimbursable grants requires careful cash flow planning, delays in implementation, as Max mentioned, and financial risk while we're waiting for those reimbursements. And for many of the smaller community-rooted nonprofits that we support, especially in rural communities, this is more than just a challenge. and often a barrier to participation altogether. And this challenge is growing. Nonprofits are facing rising costs, increasing demands, and financial uncertainty. For some context, the Nonprofit Finance Fund 2025 survey showed 85% of nonprofits expect demand for services to increase, and more than half have three months or less cash on hand. As a result, many nonprofits simply cannot participate in state funding opportunities. House Bill 1274 offers a practical and flexible solution that builds on existing permissive authority granted to CDPHE in 2021. By allowing but not requiring state agencies to provide that up to 25% of grant funding up front, This bill would give nonprofits the working capital they need to begin delivering services immediately while maintaining that accountability. Ultimately, it will ensure access to funding is based on impact, not just cash flow, and will expand access to public dollars to small and rural nonprofits at a time when nonprofits and communities need it most. On behalf of Community Resource Center and the many nonprofits we serve, I respectfully ask for your support for House Bill 1274. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And my question is for the Boys and Girls Club. Thank you for being here. It's been a very long night for, I think, everybody that's here in this room. When we toured the Boys and Girls Club in my district back in October with C3 I know we talked a little bit about funding So I guess for this policy how do you feel it would benefit the funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs especially in my district As you know in Weld County we have a growing population who are in need of the nonprofit services and I know funding is one of those things that obviously is on top of mind of everybody, especially these budget cuts. So how beneficial do you think that this would be for the Boys and Girls Club, especially in Weld County and in my district? Mr. Jenkins.

Any follow-up?

a Denver-based nonprofit that works throughout Colorado, partnering with urban, rural, and suburban school districts to provide professional development for teachers and school leaders and to bring more teachers to the state through the PEBC teacher residency. We've trained over 1,500 teachers in Colorado as an approved alternative licensure provider, and our program has proven to improve teacher retention. 81% of our teachers are still in the classroom after five years, which is far higher than the national average. PEBC has been the beneficiary of multiple grants from the state, mostly through the Department of Education. With those funds, we've worked to address the teacher shortage via our teacher residency program, provide better training for mentor teachers and school principals, and offer living stipends to teacher candidates to honor their commitment and hard work during their training year. Operating a statewide residency program that's responsible for the needs of the future teachers and the districts we partner with is complex work. This year alone, we're working with 25 school districts, numerous charter schools, and 40% of our partners are in rural communities. We have a full-time staff in Denver, Colorado Springs, and Southwest Colorado, as we recognize that members of the local community are best equipped to support the needs of aspiring teachers in their districts. The current state grant system where funds are distributed as reimbursements can lead to financial strain on our organization and has at times led to us needing to make difficult decisions around staffing either by reducing FTE or eliminating positions altogether as we work with CDE to have our grants reimbursed This can impact classrooms and teachers and students with having fewer coaches in the field than we originally planned, providing our residents with less support as they learn how to be teachers worthy of each and every student in Colorado. House Bill 1274 would add flexibility to CDE and other state agencies by allowing them to have the option to provide up to 25% of a grant up front providing critical operational cash while ensuring that grantees abide by the same guidelines for expenditures. We believe this is a strong solution to support grantees and ensure there are no service interruptions. Thank you for your time, and I urge you to support this bill.

Motion by Rep. Garcia second by Rep. Zocay. Tell us about L001. We already have it.

very clear that when we're talking about grants, that it's only grants that are funded with state money, not federal money. So we ask for an aye vote. Committee, any questions on L001?

Lindsay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. I want to thank all the organizations that came out to testify. You get a really good cross-section of different organizations that are doing wonderful things in our communities. We want them to be able to continue that work without having major financial disruption in their organization. So this is a great bill to do that and we urge an eye vote. Thank you.

Committee closing comments Representative Marshall Thank you Mr Chair So I just had a couple real quick and just based off our colleagues statement Her personal experience is exactly why she knows this is a need I didn ever want it to be pigeoned as the veterans guy but I run a veterans bill every year because I have experience in that and can spot problems where other people don and have the experience to take care of it So this is an area you know. It's obviously an area you know where to try and work. I feel a bit like a hypocrite because I voted for your bill last year, and it was a mandatory because you're absolutely right. We shouldn't, just like any construction project or the like, there are startup costs. The problem for me right now is the timing. I had a very lengthy conversation with the treasurer on Sunday, and it's a view of many that there's a lot of people who do not understand the dire straits we are in fiscally and we have multiple major frauds that are coming out right now that are hitting the papers for hundreds of millions of dollars. So to increase shoving the money out the door as quick as possible right now where even the fiscal note says if the practice of making advanced payments becomes more common, lost interest could be significant, potentially in the millions of dollars. Any organization that's in almost a bankruptcy state, which we are almost going to if we don't get our act together, would start engaging in slow pay as quickly as possible rather than accelerating it. So unfortunately because of the situation we are in, I think this timing is just a very, very bad idea. So for that reason, even though I voted last year for the mandatory one, I'm going to have to be a no today. Thanks.

Any further closing comments? Seeing none, a proper motion, Routes 1274 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations.

Okay. En fuego this evening. Please pull the committee. Representatives Barone.

Yes, that passes 7-4. Thank you so much. Now it's up for the last bill of the evening, 1233, Representatives Lukens and Zokai.

As amendments are being passed out, no need to wait. Representative Lukens.

Committee, any questions? Seeing none. No, that was just me. Seeing none, we'll go to the witness testimony phase. Okay, our first panel, if we can get Julia Koster, Thomas Downey, Joe Rowan and Matt Poling. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify in opposition to 1233? I also note that there is testimony that has been submitted and should be available in your box folder. Mr. Rowan, we could start with you. If you could unmute yourself, floor doors for two minutes.

Thank you. Please hold for questions. Next we'll hear from Mr. Poling.

Downey. Please unmute yourself. Floor is yours for two minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

seconds over. I appreciate the opportunity and thank you. Thank you so much. Do we have Julia Okay, do we have anyone else who would like to testify against or in opposition to 1233? And again, there's been testimony submitted in writing. That is available in your box. Committee, any questions for this panel? I say none. Thank you all for your time this evening. We will go to folks who signed up in an amend position. If we could get Brenda Doniz, Toby Damitz, and Cassie Stokes. And is there anyone in person? Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in an amend position?

Do we have Toby Damus online? Okay, thank you. Anyone else who wants to testify in an amend position? Any questions for Ms. Donis?

Ms. Donis?

I thought they had to be unanimous in order for CCI to take a position, so I don't know if you could shed some light on that.

Yes, thanks for the question. Weld in particular was opposed to the original bill because it was very heavy-handed and it appeared to be anti-taxpayer. These amendments have resulted in a much more fair setup, something that is much more workable and, again, more friendly to taxpayers and more balanced. Therefore, assessors are still at an amend position. And when Weld County in particular took the original opposed position, it was because of those original statements not considering any

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am Eagle County Commissioner Matt Schur here today on behalf of Colorado Counties Incorporated. CCI supports House Bill 1233 because unforeseen cracks in our otherwise fair and functional property tax appeal process ends up needlessly costing all taxpayers. That process is meant to be simple, accessible, and transparent. It is also not infallible, so the process is meant for a typical property owner to easily get a fair valuation and pay their fair share of taxes. That same straightforward system also handles tremendously complex, high-value non-residential properties that are commonly represented by attorneys and tax agents. There are two issues that House Bill 1233 seeks to remedy. Inadequate incentive for properties to provide accurate information in a timely manner, and an ability to obtain judicial review or interpretation of crucial questions of law. House Bill 1233 ensures that straightforward process remains fair for all property taxpayers while also protecting all of our taxpayers who ultimately pay for abatements delayed through no fault of their county government. It does that in three ways. First, it creates penalties for providing false information because no penalties currently exist. Second, when delays in resolution to determine value are not the fault of the county, the current 12% penalty interest rate is waived on refunds. So county taxpayers are not paying for delay they and their government did not cause. Third, when complex legal questions arise that may also require discovery, under the rules of civil procedure, the bill allows counties the same opportunity as property owners to move the case to district court that can address such legal questions. House Bill 23 protects the majority of taxpayers and local governments by fixing procedural cracks that undermine the integrity of the property tax system CCI is grateful to the sponsors for bringing this bill and for continued work threading that needle as Representative Sakai said and thank you all for your time and consideration this late evening I'm happy to take questions. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Mark Leaney. I'm a commercial real estate appraiser licensed in Colorado, holding the MAI and SRA designations, and I've been appraising property in the state for more than 40 years. My background includes service at the City and County of Denver Assessor's Office, where I handled some of the most complex valuations in Colorado. I later was appointed by the governor to the State Board of Assessment Appeals, and subsequently my firm was selected by the Colorado Legislative Council to conduct the Colorado Property Assessment Study, which is the legislatively mandated audit of valuations applied to all 64 county assessors for both real and personal property. Since then, I've been in private practice working with financial institutions, private property owners, and county governments. I've served as a hearings officer and arbitration officer for property tax matters for several counties, and I've been an expert witness in some of the largest property tax appeals in the state. Across all of this work, one theme has been constant. Accurate, consistent, and transparent data is essential to a fair assessment process. A properly functioning assessment system depends on the timely exchange of relevant information. For income-producing properties, the most reliable indicator of value is the property's actual income-producing capabilities. Assessors work hard to establish fair and equitable valuations, but they can only do so when they have access to accurate data. In my work with counties, I have repeatedly seen situations where income and expense information shifts between the initial appeal, subsequent appeals, and the final hearing. I've also observed a pattern over many years of withholding, delaying, or selectively providing information. I've seen data provided that it's incomplete, misleading, and frankly, inaccurate. This practice does not serve the public good. It prevents assessors from fully understanding a property's true value and its economic performance, and it undermines the goal of fair and equitable taxation. The burden placed on county governments to obtain accurate information is significant and time consuming, and county boards and the Board of Assessment Appeals are also impacted. My hope is that House Bill 26-1233 will help address these long-standing concerns, and I believe in conclusion that House Bill 26-1233 strengthens the assessment process for most transparency and provides a more appropriate venue for complex legal disputes. In my opinion, it will contribute to a more equitable property tax environment in our state. I thank you for your time and for your consideration.

Yes, Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe this is something for the AG but I a little confused why the attempt to influence a public servant under 18 would not apply If someone was submitting false information to the assessor office to influence the decision it would seem like that would be a felony.

Thank you, Rep. Marshall and Mr. Chair. I could give that a shot, but I'd leave it to Mr. Linney, too, who would have better expertise at that. But my understanding is that this is already illegal, but there is simply no consequence for that behavior. But Mr. Lanet may have more information, though I know he's not on the legal side of this either.

Yes, thank you. You know, I can't comment on the legalities of it. I can only tell you what I've seen in my experience, which is that at times it appears that data is submitted with impunity that changes from appeal level to appeal level. I have seen that personally, and it's very disturbing. Sometimes, of course, it could be as a result of a misunderstanding or further clarification, but it happens to the extent that I think it is difficult for the assessor to do much about at this point. And as this bill provides that there are penalties for that action that I think puts some teeth and gives assessors the opportunity to ensure that the data that is provided is accurate, because the end goal should be on both sides to get accurate information so that good valuation can occur. And frequently that system, as I said, appears to have been abused.

Yeah, I appreciate it, but have you ever referred any of these to the district attorney because a class 4 felony has far more implications than what we're putting in now, and it seems like it's already covered by that statute. I mean, if you have this, you're still, if it's a misdemeanor offense or the like, you're still going to have to refer it to the DA. So I'm getting a little confused. Are we being redundant for some reason?

Unfortunately, I can't speak to that because I've never been in a position to refer anyone. That's never been my role in those particular matters. So I would defer to assessment personnel that might have more insight into that.

Yes, Mr. Chair, I move L-001.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. L1 is a non-substative conforming amendment to Senate Bill 46, as the drafter requested. We ask for your yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this bill is replacing the civil penalty structure that you are seeing in the current bill with a petty offense framework instead. There were some concerns over who would charge that civil offense, and quite frankly, the BAA is not the correct avenue to make that determination, and our assessors also did not want to have to make that determination. And so what we have before UNL-2 allows the county attorney to move forward if there is a taxpayer that's willfully providing this information. And we ask for a yes vote.

Representative Zocchi.

I move L3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. L3 is an amendment that ensures that administrative boards cannot act as judges for criminal or financial penalties. It strikes language that would have allowed for the mandatory removal of complex or high-value cases to district court. It clarifies that the Board of Assessment Appeals has no authority to determine a taxpayer has forfeited their right to penalty interest on a refund And it has a part in relation to a taxpayer only loses their interest if a court of competent jurisdiction specifically finds they committed the petty offense described in L2. This ensures that we ask for a U.S. vote on L3.

No more amendments, Mr. Chair.

Representative Lukens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the Finance Committee. We are asking for your yes vote on House Bill 1233 in relation to property tax proceedings. We have stakeholder this bill extensively, and we will continue to have conversations. This bill introduces a series of practical common sense updates to administrative procedures governing non-residential property tax reveals and we ask for your yes vote

Closing comments from the committee.

Any further closing comments from the committee? Seeing none, a proper motion Representative Zocchi, Routes 1233 as amended to the cow.

Second. Motion by Representative Zokai, second by Rep Stewart. Please pull the committee. Representatives Barone.

Mr. Chair. Yes. That passes 6-4 with one excuse. Folks, that concludes our business in finance. Pay attention to your calendars for what's up on Monday. Until then, we stand adjourned.