Joint Budget Committee [Mar 27, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Well, there is a question we had the two options regarding the social studies assessment.

No.

I told the money on that.

Actually?

Okay, we're just going in a random order?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you know that I am uncomfortable repealing this. I would suggest a $3 million or a $4 million program to finish it out. But, Ms. Bickle, you'll probably be happy to hear me say that I will give up on the after-school program that meant a lot to me. But we've all given things up that I would give that one up. I think that's 1.5 million.

Thank you. That helps a little bit. And I know we're not there, but I underlined several things in this document that I think we could look at to offset the remaining dollars. But for STEM students, young STEM students, this and the nonprofits that are doing these types of academic programs, I want to continue to support them.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, I think they all did, but my question has also been what would happen.

And that's, sorry, to finish out the cycle. And if you cut it, it's 54 grantees serving, I'm not sure how many kids. I can't even. 54 schools, I think.

I mean, I think you could, and I also would expect that, you know, depending on the dollar amount you decide to leave in, that might affect that as well. And I expect the department will also say it needs to retain some money for administration. So the total savings you were going to get out of eliminating,

And then I think it's a question of how much go just to the grantees. And I mean, my guess would be maybe they'd reduce proportionately, but I don't really know what that would mean in terms of kids served or, or how it, whether some grantees would choose to pull out. if you give me a number, I can talk to the department about it, and they could probably tell me this is how we would expect to handle it.

Yeah, I'm going to come out of the three.

So include admin in the three, just say three total.

I mean, I think the expectation was that even if you ran the program to the end, you'd probably save a million because probably there would be a million that wouldn't get used anyway.

So we make sure we get three million in the field.

Yeah, I just, I mean, I'm happy to go along, and I appreciate that this one's hard for you, but I just, without knowing, like, what the $3 million is going to do, like, what does it mean in the field for who and where and how, if it's dramatically less than what they said they needed, that just worries me a little bit. So I think maybe then what we would ask for is a bill draft that is reflecting not a repeal of the program, but actually just a continuation, but with $3.2 million.

It does because the bill itself included a certain amount of dollars.

They don't.

I would like not.

is the other one in the packet that you haven't yet acted on.

Hang on just a second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to introduce LLS 0753 Healthy School Meals for All State Education Fund.

Is that an objection or a question? Maybe a question.

Yes. Because we still have the shell transfer amount in there. Can we change the shell to a May? It's not an automatic that we would transfer, is it? I know you wanted a pause instead of eliminating it. But this does shell transfer on July 1, 2028. No, I want to keep the shell. I asked for a pause, not a repeal. And that would be repealing what we asked for.

Also, if we say the State Treasurer may transfer, THAN, I MEAN, LIKE, DOES THE TREASURE JUST, LIKE, FLIP A COIN? LIKE, WHAT'S TO DETERMINE THE MAYOR OR, LIKE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACTUALLY GO AHEAD WITH IT? I THINK WE EITHER HAVE TO SAY THAT THEY MAKE THE TRANSFER OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL. GIVEN HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD DO IT.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Could we put, I don't want to overcomplicate the bill. I understand where you're coming from, but we don't know in total the security of this program because we don't know where the federal government's going to go in the future on this program. but could we put a clause in that somewhat indicates if for any reason, and I'm just thinking out loud, so bear with me, if for any reason the fund comes under strain for whatever reason that these will take place, but that if that doesn't come under that strain, we don't need to do it.

We're talking about the other transfer. We're talking about the other transfer. Which one's the reverse? Where?

Where's the shell?

THEN THAT'S EVEN BETTER, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. THEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO MORE YEARS TO FIGURE OUT IF WE WANT TO DO THIS OR NOT. SO LIKE THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO DO THIS. THERE'S THE SHALL RIGHT UP HERE. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHALL YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. YOU SAID SHALL ON PAGE TWO. THE FIRST SHALL ON PAGE TWO IS LINE FIVE. I WRONG, DUE? AM I WRONG?

THANK YOU. IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT, LIKE, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY, IT'S A FOOTNOTE, IS IT A LETTER NOTE? JUST A REMINDER, SOMEWHERE IN THE LONG BILL, WITH REGARD TO HEALTHY SCHOOL MEALS THAT WILL ADDRESS THIS IN TWO YEARS?

Well, we've had a bill every year, so the same. And there's been different things in it that, I don't know, that we all really probably weren't as aware of as we should have been. But, and the Joint Budget Committee changes. So is there possible to do, like, is it called a letter note, not a footnote? That just is a reminder or something? So future JBCs know to look at it.

I mean, you know, something like that.

I just want a letter note.

I don't think, I mean, I think what you're talking about actually, let's say a request for information, because it doesn't actually fit either of those. A request for information that they give you a response, and we can say it's in November of 2027, to draw to everybody attention that everybody should think about this issue Okay Okay So you bring us back language from our mind

Mr. McClure Thank you Madam Chair Andrew McClure, JBC staff so on page 8 of packet 15 is the updated draft of the affordable housing financing fund bill to transfer $110 million from the Affordable Housing Financing Fund to the General Fund, along with several changes in the sort of administration of the fund. And this represents the changes requested by the Vice Chair? Yes, Madam Chair, that is correct.

Yeah, the eighth and then on to the ninth page of the bill. Sub, paragraph B on page nine, I believe, is what the vice chair requested. Yes, sorry, page nine of the bill. which would be page 16 of the packet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to introduce LLS 0846, Affordable Housing Finance Fund. Except. Except that we may.

except that we increase the transfer from 110 to 130, and that on Monday at final balancing we may adjust that number additionally up or down.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Chair, a question. I thought the original 110 was to balance off the 25-26 budget. Do we really need another 20 million for the 20? Because we were in the positive. What did I miss?

Everybody's nodding, so I missed something. Ms. This is on July 1, 2026.

Madam Chair, Representative Taggart, the key piece with this particular bill is that if whatever amount you are going to make in this transfer you want to make in a year where you're below the TABOR cap to eliminate any uncertainty about the TABOR treatment of the revenue. Okay. And being below the cap this year, if you want to transfer $130 million, then the current year would be the time to do it rather than doing 110 this year And then the 20 million if we we are above the cap in 2627 then you wouldn that transfer wouldn accomplish anything so You need to this one has particular. Potential Tabor complications we have counsel if if you want additional input. But the movement to doing this increasing the transfer in 2526 in this case has nothing to do with balancing 2526 it's. the mechanics of this particular transfer, you want to do it in the current year.

That's helpful. Thank you. But it doesn't address the second part of my question is, where is the need for that additional 20, unless I miss something, at 110, we were, we were, oh, wait a second. So let me back up. So you're saying that we're no longer going to do the 110 or 130 in 20, no, we have to do it in 25, 26, because that's when we're under the cap. So I come back to the question, what is the additional $20 million needed for, given the fact that we already were $14 million to the plus, I thought, utilizing the $110. Am I missing something?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Taggart, the need is in fiscal year 26-27. So the goal is to move the money into the general fund. it would then, if you all take this path, it would increase, if you add the $20 million, it will increase the starting balance of the general fund in the current year, so that then you're in a better position for next year. So instead of being at 13%, we'll be at like a 13.0001%. Okay, I understand now.

So the motion is to introduce, but at the number 130 million, and we're comfortable introducing, but if you would just leave that open a bit until Monday when we intend to be sure. That would be great. Understood. Director Harper.

If we don't bring it back, it's 1.30. Okay. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6 to 0. This bill will start in the House and run with the long bill. House sponsors will be Brown and Taggart. And in the Senate, Bridges and Kirkmeyer. God, people rushing to cut housing. No. And the co-sponsors will be Sirota and Amable. I'm just trying to even out the bills. So we were rushing to it. I'm like, no, Bridges and I are behind. Okay, all right, because I was rushing on everything else. You're both behind. Yeah, the same amount, though. Now we're only two behind. Okay, noted. You're like five behind. I have the greatest effort obligation. You're one behind Brown. Emily is five behind Kyle. That's what I've been doing. Adam, chair, you've got to catch up here. Okay. Same. All right. Next, Ms. Kanagaraja. No? Oh, we have Mr. Sabetsky. Do we want to circle back to this beauty? On the front? This beauty. It's really...

MR. SAVETSKI. HELLO, MADAM CHAIR. UNDERSTAND THE MECHANICS OF THIS. SO, MADAM CHAIR, I DIDN'T LISTEN TO THE COMMITTEE'S PRIOR DISCUSSION when you authorized this bill for drafting. Just to revisit there quickly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics usually computes monthly estimates for the Consumer Price Index for Denver or Lakewood. For 2025, the BLS had 11 months of data as opposed to the usual 12. They averaged their 11 months in order to come with a CPI for calendar 2025. we expect that that estimate is less than the actual consumer price index for 2025 because it overweights the first half of the year. For that reason, using an estimate of the two, or an average of the two semi-annual estimates is likely a better approximation of what the consumer price index would have been if 12 months of data were available for 2025. That inflation calculation is used many places in statute, as you can see from looking at the bill draft. Most notably for our purposes are calculation of the 2627 Tabor limit and calculation of the 2627 total program obligation under Amendment 23. The bill would require in all places where the CPI is used that we use the adjusted semi-annual average of 2025, both when calculating 2025 inflation and as the base for calculating 2026 inflation. So that there's no sort of arbitrage where the 2026 value is erroneously overstated relative to that lower 2025 value. So in terms of what all of those sections are, I imagine we'll be going through all of those as we prepare the fiscal note. In most cases, we don't expect a material impact beyond the two largest ones that I've already spoken on. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just puzzled why we don't call out the number in the end. I'm not seeing the actual CPI adjustment in the bill at all. Is there a reason for that? I understand that I created this craziness by saying we ought to be consistent, which I still agree we need to be consistent. BUT IS THERE REASON WE DON'T CALL OUT THE 2.4 PERCENT?

Okay. Any other questions? Director Harper.

Well, thank you for the innovation, Mr. Lively.

That passes on a vote of...

Six to zero. That will start in the House and run with the long bill. House sponsors will be Taggart and Sirota. Apparently I've got to catch up.

I'm excited about this one. Okay. You're going to take Kirkmeyer and Bridges. Yeah. Co-sponsors Brown and Amabile.

Big time. Very badly. All right, Ms. Kanagaraja.

I'm sorry, I have a question about that.

They'll use it to address the wait list that they have currently. and people being able to access vocational rehabilitation services. So with that additional money, they think they'll be able to serve 1,700 more people. Senator Kirkmer Thank you And are they anticipating that they going to need more FTE for that Well that good There a first Ms Conagoraja shook her head no

Ms. Conagoraja. Okay. The first part of this memo goes through some adjustments made to the bill since figure setting that I haven't gotten a chance to talk to the committee about. The first one is that I didn't discuss where the remaining balance of the disability parking education enforcement fund would go once it's repealed. And so the bill puts the remaining balance of that into the general fund. It's about $20,000. The second bullet point creates a separate sub-account in the disability support fund where revenue from the auction of specialty license plate combinations would go into. This is because the bill authorizes the Colorado Disability Opportunity Office to do that auction, but allows them to contract with the public or private entity to actually administer the auction, and then they could send the proceeds of that auction to reimburse that entity for the sale. It is written this way because the initial intent was that the special purpose authority would be doing the auction, auction, but an entity that is outside of the state cannot sell state property, which would be the license plate, which is why statute is written in this way. And the revenue is being deposited into a sub account instead of the disability support fund so that the committee and people who are interested have visibility into how much is being generated from the auction. The way that that sub account is written is that for the department to access money from it would be through an annual appropriation. So a decision by the Joint Budget Committee. But they have continuous spending authority to essentially reimburse the public or private

the spa but the spa has to contract with the state or some other third party to do it but then the money can go into the spa? More the second. So the money would go into SEDU first but it would be an agreement and statute and in the contract between SEDU and the authority to for the authority to to actually administer this work and then they would get paid for their work.

The revenue has always been TABOR exempt. Ah.

For specialty combination license plates. So for personalized combinations of like special letters or numbers. Okay. Vice Chair Bridges.

But the rest of the 25 we were collecting was definitely subject to Tabor. And most of it is definitely going to the special purpose authority. Okay.

It will go to the spa eventually. Okay.

The auction by Sherbridges.

That is the legal interpretation that it should have always been Tabor exempt I getting clarification on how OSC treats it Vice Chair Bridges Thank you Madam Chair Because I asked numerous times I get very angry every time I see these Because it sold as like generating money for the state but if we over the TAPER cap then there no money for the state that it generates

Yes, Rebecca Bietti with the Office of Legislative Legal Services. So, and right now we're only talking about the specialty number, like registration combos, not the plates.

And that would be kind of the specialty combination that could appear on any type of license plate, right, background. And then there is the license plate in a retired style, which is like the red license plate, the black license plate, the blue license plate that we've all talked about, or the opposite mountain color compost.

And that is what the donation and fee kind of split is for. But you could have that type of license plate with just a normal combination on it. AND SO WHAT THIS BILL CURRENTLY IN THE BILL DRAFT IT SPECIFIES THAT IF YOU ARE BUYING THE RIGHT TO USE A SPECIALTY COMBINATION THAT IS A PROPERTY SALE. AND SO WE'RE AMENDING THAT STATUTE TO SAY VERY CLEARLY LIKE THAT'S A PROPERTY SALE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION AND FOR PURPOSES OF FISCAL YEAR SPENDING.

So I have a question then. So this is, is this the disability support fund and the sweep? And so it's $21 million. And how is that $21 million going to the general fund? Then how is it reallocated? Because I thought this is where we were saying that money was going to go to the community living facility. Yesterday we decided that instead of doing the refinance, we were taking all of the money now.

As it has been doing. Yeah, it's been funded out of the general fund, and I thought we were going to get some general fund relief with using these funds for it, and that it all, I mean, this is first I've heard about Voc Rehab.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What we did is instead of taking those dollars and putting them towards something else and having general fund relief because we put it towards something else. We're just going to continue funding that something else with general fund and take the dollars directly into the general fund, providing general fund relief through that sweep, as opposed to general fund relief by offsetting another general fund expense. We're just taking it directly in.

Okay, so where does the Voc Rehab play into this in serving another thousand or whatever it was people? It was part of the department's request for buying down that wait list once because they were going to get a much larger federal. So the whole $21 million is not going to voc rehab? No, only $1 million to voc rehab, correct? Oh, I didn't hear that part.

Yes, $1 million.

The rest to the general fund. $21 million to the general fund and then $1 million to voc rehab.

Correct.

For four years? Just ongoing. Just ongoing. It's not, nothing is changing.

Okay.

Any more questions? Okay. Vice, so these changes in your memo are incorporated into this bill draft. Correct. Okay. Vice Chair Bridges.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of six to zero. This bill will start in the house and run with the long bill. House sponsors will be Sirota M. Brown and in the Senate, Bridges, and Amable. And co-sponsors will be Kirkmeyer and Taggart. Ms. Bova.

Any questions? Thank you Madam Chair.

Approve the update.

YEAH BROWN AND KIRKMIER LOOKING AT YOU SAM ANDERSON Yeah Brown and Kirkmeyer Looking at you Sam Anderson

Okay.

That's good.

Vice Chair Bridges.

Okay. Oh, then in that building. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Thank you, Ms. Bova. All right. Ms. Curry.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. General fund. Yep. Move to introduce LLS 0892. Oh, whoops. Turned back too far. Move to introduce LLS0912, Disaster Emergency Fund Changes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sam Rickman, JBC staff, here to talk about the bill that we brought up yesterday, LLS 260897 transfers from the unclaimed property trust fund. It effectively transfers 27.8 million to the general fund and 2.2 million to the housing development grant fund, taking the place of the $30 million transfer that was scheduled to occur into the housing development grant fund. The one thing I wanted to flag with this bill is that under current statute, three transfers will automatically take place during years when the state is underneath the Tabor cap.

transfers from unclaimed property trust fund. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. This bill will start in the House and run with the long bill. House sponsors will be Sirota and Brown and in the Senate, and Kirkmeyer. You're behind.

Co-sponsor.

Yeah, also, Madam Chair.

Well, actually, along those lines, we had also talked about ending the adult dental

Mr. Lively. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, Lively Office of Legislative Legal Services. Yes, I believe we could fit it in this bill if under the current title. If not, we could obviously amend the title to make that fit. I think the current problem with making the title that much narrower, again, maybe there's some way to do this, is the fact that we're sending money to two different places from the UPTF and we can't in the title say transfer from the UPTF to and. So I'm not saying there's not a path forward, but I think that's why it's written the way it is.

Well, so could we make an additional transfer of an additional $45 million from the UPTF to the general fund?

Mr. Lively. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to confirm, what would be the dates? Would this be 25-26? Okay, just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. Thank you very much.

Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just to clarify, so we're again doing this, building up the positive above 13%, which gives us a better starting balance for 26, 27? Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was the thought process.

Yeah.

MR. RICKMAN.

WHAT? Would it be helpful to ask Mr. Kurtz to join everyone? We tried to cancel it, but for some reason we didn't. Yeah. In 24? No, we didn't do it in 24. We tried to cancel it last year. Last year, but we didn't. Yeah. Because we were worried. I am. No, I thought we voted on it in 24 too. No. Because I know we talked about it. It's possible it came up then too. All right, we're done.

We can't. We took all we could, apparently.

No more going to take. I don't know. Mr. Kurtz, I don't know if you were listening or if you're just being dropped in. So we have this bill with a rather broad title about the unclaimed property trust fund and addressing a transfer that was already in statute. And so we wanted to add to this bill an additional amount that we would sweep from the UPTF in fiscal year 26, but then going forward, we would stop the transfer for the adult dental benefit from happening. So we wanted to see if we could put that in this bill as well. Mr. Lively said this title would allow for it, or if you need to make changes to the title, then... Does that sound okay?

Well, I think we'll ask if you can make those changes to the draft and then we'll... Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Yeah. I think we should end.

Why? Do you want to keep the transfer?

Vice Chair Bridges.

SENATOR KIRKMUR.

Mr. Rickman.

Vice Chair Bridges.

Senator Kirkman.

Vice Chair Bridges.

Rep Taggart.

Rep Taggart.

Representative Taggart, the securities are in a different trust fund. They're in the unclaimed property tourism promotion trust fund. That discussion was related but different. That was the discussion around the agricultural management fund, which gets the interest revenue from the fund with the securities in it. This bill is entirely to do with the unclaimed property trust fund, which doesn't have securities in it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I would pose back the question then, don't we want to be consistent with whatever we do on one side of things, we do on the other? I'm not saying that it necessarily has to be the same number of years. I don't know that. But I would think our colleagues would immediately ask that question Why did we do one and not the other

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's fair to include the other one in that conversation. It's a much smaller fund, but if we're looking at what is safe to take out of one, certainly I think it's fair to look at what's safe to take out of the other. But again, on this housing piece, this passed before we had Prop 123, which is a significant, just well over $30 million a year going to housing. And so I know we did take some of that this year. Yeah, but next year we won't, probably. Well, next year we'll be above the taper cap, so we can't, according to all current law and current data. So I just think that this is $30 million coming from a place that we don't necessarily know until this next bill passes if it's appropriate to have that planned transfer. I'M DEEPLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT STAYING IN LAW.

We have a few other things on the list.

Okay Mr Dermody Thank you Madam Chair For the record Tom Dermody Joint Budget Committee staff Yeah send me that language Our general process is to have LLS review and approve for any potential legal concerns The one thing I would note is we probably don't need to specify the exact appropriation because it will be attached to that footnote. That footnote will be attached to the line item, which is exclusively appropriated from the HSMA. So we may do some cleanup language on that, but yes, that should be fine. It's truly the intent that this money doesn't get utilized by the department to do something else that we didn't want them to do with it.

Madam Chair, I think the specificity of that language certainly provides those guardrails.

Yes.

Do we need a vote or a motion by Chair Bridges? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can give you this and email it to you. Do you want it written or just email? Okay. We just got another foot. Is this you? Okay. No, this is Ms. Taggart. Okay, Rep. Taggart.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was looking at this and thinking, shouldn't this just be a bill? but it's a footnote which means that we're saying they should do this but there's no actual requirement that they do this but it is a hey if anything at least it is a signal to them that they need to have some sort of investment in local media and then tell us about it so

up and yada yada yada all right are there any objections that passes on a vote of six to zero Director Harper, do you have this? Do you want this? I can get you the email first and I'll just right away. Okay. Senator Mobley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is for DOC, but I don't know if we need to have them come out. I wanted to add an RFI, and I'll read it out loud, out loud that the Office of State Planning and Budgeting It's requested to submit a report by November 1st, 2026 on the financial and operational feasibility of consolidating the Veterans Community Living Centers, which are below capacity, such that a center might be repurposed into a state-run facility to accommodate certain individuals in the custody of the state, such as individuals found incompetent to proceed and unlikely to be restored to competency in the foreseeable future, and former Department of Corrections inmates who are paroled on compassionate release. The analysis is expected to reflect OSPB collaboration with the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Human Services, and the Behavioral Health Administration. It will also include impacts of potential Medicaid matches from individuals eligible for Medicaid and potential cost savings as inmates transition to parolees. Question? Senator Kirkmeyer. Yeah, where is this coming from? And then the veterans' centers, living centers, and consolidating them, where are they all located? Senator Mobley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know exactly where they're located, but I know that we have a number of facilities in the state that are not fully occupied. And so just wanted to know where they are, how many there are, what is the occupancy level, and in order to see if would it be possible to consolidate some of these, one or two of them, so that we could free up space in a facility that would be dedicated to people who are either PITP, permanently incompetent, or people coming out of corrections. Oh, see, I got the wrong department there. But here he is, and that's good because I have another thing. Okay. To see if it's feasible. It might not be. But if it is, then the state would be able to move some people into these facilities, draw down Medicaid and Medicare, and provide a place for people to be in a secure setting. Okay. Can you pass us your sheet? Yeah. Sorry. I should have made copies. You guys are more pro than I am.

You can use the word crazy.

Senator Amabla. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think that this is nursing home. Your hospital is a mental health hospital. Not that they couldn't convert it. I have no idea what that would entail. But I am also very interested in the state looking for a hospital to purchase and operate AND I believe people are aware I know I am aware of the place in Grand Junction and there are potentially other places in the state. And I would like to, I would also like separately for them to be looking into that, and I have asked for that. As part of the conversation around if we have some extra money to buy capital assets, for example, the prison, rather than to do that, I would rather buy a hospital and nursing homes and transitional living homes. So this is just one piece. It could be leaves. Senator Kirkbatter. Just to see that there are five, and to my question, there are apparently five of these living centers around the state, and the current competency is about 65 districts. Vice Chair Bridges.

Mr. Dermody. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Committee. While there are five VCLCs in the state as a whole, only four are state-run. The fifth is a private-run VCLC. It's outside of the state's control, so I don't think that there's a whole lot of anything we can do around that particular facility. The four facilities, there's one in Monta Vista, a rifle. I should know this because I'm... Representative Brown knows.

But in terms of capacity for this type of thing, I think the RFI is certainly the route to go to try to find that information. I don't have it off the top of my head. In terms of staffing, I do know that they've pared down their staffing a bit to match their census, the number of people living in these VCLCs. But in terms of trying to scope what this would look like, an RFI is certainly an appropriate mechanism.

conversation and clean it up as best you see fit and go with it unless there are major revisions.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 60-0. Senator Mobley It about the Youth Mental Health Services Corps and I sorry I feel like I really kind of botched this throughout but I would like for us to fund that program which I understanding is a very worthy program I think Ms. Pope had some opinions about it, but what I was hoping to do is to take the, we had a positive balance in the marijuana cash tax fund, and then we also have in the marijuana cash tax fund, I forget what it's called, but the governor's, in the governor's section. Evidence-based study. The evidence-based study, and if we took those two amounts, that's about a million dollars, and like to put that towards this Youth Mental Health Services Corps in the Lieutenant Governor's office. And if it has to be a bill, then maybe you all would agree to run a bill. Otherwise, I was thinking, and I think Ms. Pope, maybe is she going to come out here, had a slightly different opinion that we might just be able to put a footnote that says this money is to fund the Mental Health Services Court in the Lieutenant Governor's office. And here she comes. But you're talking about the evidence-based what-have-you is under contract, is it not? I apologize for my... We do it annually. ...inartful description of what it is, but Director Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair. There's definitely a contract in place. Whether the contract is in place through 2627, I don't know. That would be an internal matter for OSPB. Ms. Kanagaraj announced yes. No, I don't know. Oh, you don't know? Okay. Okay. Rep. Brown. Yes, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't remember what this evidence-based thing does. I need a little bit more depth. Sorry to be crude. I just need a little more detail as to what we're stealing money from. It's very boring, so you might have zoned out when we have brought that up. It's in the governor's office, and we've been doing it for three or four years. Or Ms. Conagraja. Thanks. So the committee might remember in your figure-setting documents, sometimes there's an evidence-based designation section. Oh, that's what we're zeroing out? Yeah, it's the governor's side of that. So OSPB's work with the department to create that section or analyze evidence-based designations in their requests. Isn't that only like $300,000? No, it's $500,000. I don't know the governor's funding them up for that. I can't find my marijuana stuff right now, but that's what it is. I think it's $300,000. $200,000? $300,000. $300,000. So I was right, $300,000. So how is that enough money for the youth? Plus the balance. Plus the balance of what? That's over the... So it would be $1.3 million? No, because I think the balance in the marijuana... Oh, good, everybody's going to come. The balance in the marijuana cash tax fund... Wow, it's the whole crew. I'm sorry. I don't want to waste everybody's time with this, but I think it is a worthy program, and so I'm trying to figure out a way to save it. I can appreciate that. Echo. Stop. Echo. Although we did end up with a bit of a cut to Tony Gramsos which I would also prefer to replace if we topping anything off out of MTCF Well, okay. It was maybe $200,000, but Senator Mobley. Well, this isn't topping off because this program is going to go away without some funding because they lost their federal funding. But I have another suggestion if people are game for it, which would be this institute for research to take some money from that. I don't know that I'm okay with that. We did it last year, but we didn't cut anything from it. I think we continued it, didn't we? Mr. Catlett, did we continue that cut from last year? I can't find a line. I apologize. Thank you, Madam Chair. John Catlett, JBC staff. Institute for Cannabis Research. And higher education. It's in the marijuana cash tax. So, Madam Chair, it looks like, yes, there was a reduction last year. The governor requested to restore that, but the committee did not take action to restore that. So it's the same appropriation this year as it was in the last fiscal year of $3.1 million. Brett Brown. I would just say that I think that the Institute for Cannabis Research is not necessarily, like, they just follow the data, where it goes, and some of it is actually beneficial to public health. It isn't just necessarily about sort of promoting business and the business of cannabis. So I would be, I'm not sure that I'm completely on board with taking that money. I'M NOT ON BOARD WITH TAKING THAT MONEY. I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M NOT SURE. I'M JUST NOT ON BOARD WITH TAKING THAT MONEY. BUT MADAM CHAIR, I DO BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE ELIMINATED THE SHARE BACK TO LOCALS, THAT THERE'S STILL $750,000 OF ROOM. It's like $500,000 of room. And I think I heard maybe two different numbers were expressed, but maybe that the low end of what they could handle for the youth mental health core that would still be impactful would be $750,000. Maybe they told you a million bucks. Well, I mean, I think that would work. So what is the It's 592 is what the balance is in the marijuana cash tax fund. Vice Chair Bridges.

to the LCS forecast? So, Madam Chair, if you're going to bounce to the LCS forecast, which was my understanding, there is currently a balance of $592,000 above the statutory reserve. But you need to take account for the 15% reserve requirement. So currently you have $514,864 available. And what is the amount in the statutory reserve? 15%. But what's the total? Oh, the total dollar? Right now. You have a statutory reserve $18.9 million. Okay. So we have $18.9 million in the statutory reserve for the marijuana cash tax fund? Correct. I mean, would people be okay with dipping into that 15% reserve that's $18 million? But technically we're balancing to OSPB here, but we are trying to get to the LCS. Thank you. Madam Chair, we, like we did last year, we can pick a different prediction for MTCF. So we chose LCS as what it is that we're using to balance MTCF, right? Yes. And then even though we're balancing the budget overall to OSPB, we're using LCS for this. My question, though, is that if we're, it seems like lowering the reserve requirement in the MTCF to 13, as we're doing in the general fund, would be parallel, but also seems like a worse idea, given what MTCF looks like in the future, and how wrong everyone has been about it in the past. I don't think that that would be a good idea. And I also think either to lower that reserve, given the challenges we've had in coming into balance, and to Mr. Catlett's point, what happens if we're quite wrong here and things keep dropping instead of leveling off, that we're talking about program cuts mid-year. And if we reduce the reserve on that, that's kind of where we're headed. So, but to my question on technically, what are we doing? We are, we worked to get the balance projections closer to what LCS is forecasting, but we're still balancing according to OSPB. Correct, Mr. Catlett? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, that's my understanding. So, and Director Harper, correct me if I'm wrong, but you pick one forecast, you've chosen the OSPB forecast, and that applies across all balancing actions. But you can definitely leave, you don't have to appropriate every single dollar, and I guess this is somewhat semantics here. Like you're balanced to OSPB, but you're leaving enough to cover the LCS projection. I don't know how exactly you want to frame that. But if you're asking for staff recommendation, I would not allocate all of this money according to OSBB forecast for all the reasons we've previously discussed. All right. I'm in support of using the 592 that ends up being the 514. And then in the governor's office, there's that staff person that is a specialist or something that gets funded. If we only funded it for half a year, we could get another $70,000. We didn't already do that. Did we do that? I don't know. I have an old sheet here. I thought we were going to, but maybe we didn't. Mr. Catlett? We do that. Did we do that? Thank you, Madam Chair. It was discussed. I don't believe we took action.

So then we could add that half time, half of that. So they're funded through the end of the year, through the governor's term, and we would take half of it and put towards your youth mental. I'm calling it yours now.

Your youth mental program. It's going to be sad when it, you know. And then we can take the 300 for the evidence-based whatever thing. You're fine with taking the evidence-based?

But here, keep going.

I don't know.

Thank you, Madam Chair. we are the JBC. I did not find that useful, but I could be, maybe you all, maybe you did.

but that's what I heard was useful. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Chair. I'll also say that the MTCF is probably not the place we should be funding that from, just from like a where should dollars appropriately be or not, and that perhaps this drives a request from OSPB next year to fund the work that is being done by the folks that are paid for from this line. I definitely, though, thought that there is the potential for this to run its course for another year, but that could be the end of this contract project. That's what we heard last year. Or maybe I just asked if that could be the case. We didn't.

Madam Chair, I do not have details on OSPB's contract with DU at all. So we can seek out that information, but I don't know what the time frame would be. And if they have a contract, I'm sure that it's written to be subject to state appropriations. So, I mean, I think what the committee is sort of pointing at here is a pretty significant policy question in that this money is supporting staff at OSPB and a contract that is providing support for staff at OSPB as well as support for the agencies. Our staff doesn't have a ton of transparency into exactly how that's playing out in terms of the interaction with the agencies, with the departments themselves. The creation of this program was a JBC bill from several years ago. It's gone through a couple of iterations, And I think, as Senator Amabile pointed out, you all are the consumers of the information that we're the first round of consumers from what's coming in the request. The vice chair is correct when he points out that there's been a historic and to some extent ongoing, although I would say improving disconnect between the two offices on what we deem evidence and evidence-based programs. You can see it in our documents this year when we're flagging it with these paragraphs that I'm guessing become annoying to either read or skip as you're going through our kind of insanely long documents. So all of that aside, the part of that contract that the part of the work with DU that I'm particularly familiar with, just speaking to the contract piece, I think if you want to discuss the OSPB staff or more aspects of the contract, then OSPB would be the people to talk to, obviously. But a significant use of that contract has been both providing technical assistance to the departments in trying to improve their implementation, and then paying for a third review which is done by the lab at DU to look at the bill the bill requirements The lab played a consulting role for the JBC in crafting that original in crafting all of the legislation related to this. And to do an external review after the fact and look at, okay, we have a bill that says this. We have a whole bunch of decision items that are submitted by the executive branch, looking at their congruence with the bill and looking at our congruence, and then they provide an analysis that is supposed to iteratively inform this process so that we get to a point where we're not coming at it from such different angles. That's the two pieces of the contract that I'm most aware of. If this process truly isn't proving useful to the committee, then I think there's a bigger question there than just cutting this funding because I am a little bit concerned if the funding is cut on an ongoing basis that the quality of the information that we receive will potentially go down if there's not additional assistance being provided, in which case it may make sense to rethink some of the statute. We have both analysts that are leading that effort since Mr. Burmeister's exit to North Carolina. I was going to say, trying to avoid the no longer with us statement. but it's alive and well in North Carolina yes and I think Ms. Boba and Ms. Conagraja may have more information than I do on the contract there but I think you're pointing at a bigger question than just this $300,000 which is the goal of this effort was to provide the best evidence that we could for the committee as you're deliberating these things and the goal of the committee at the time was if programs were working then let's put more money there if they're not working then let's figure out whether we should cut it or maybe they need more money but it I would be the first to say that I don't know that it's played out the way that the committee has hoped but just cutting the funding and leaving the statute in place that statute clearly requires OSPB to undertake an analysis and submit decision items that they deem to be evidence-based and I'm And I'm a little bit worried that we'll see a decrease because presuming that this money is helping, I'm afraid that we'll see a decline in the quality there. And the other piece that I would note, it's sort of alluded to in the discussion that the committee has had, but there is, if history is predictive, then the assistance that has been provided and the expertise that has been built up at OSPB may not still be there when the next governor takes office. So it may be a particularly difficult time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I propose a full half cut in both the evidence-based policymaking line and the governor's office 117,000 line, or sorry, the 135,000 line.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I know this is a subject that we probably talk about more each session than almost anything else, but I've lost track of what, where did we pledge the 3 local share that we eliminated from this Or did we need that Right But did we pledge that against a specific It kept our reserve at 15 Oh it kept the reserve And so we above the

92.

You're going to have to take the 15% off all of it.

5 what?

Yeah, if we're counting that.

Judy's youth mental health program.

That would be a JYMHP, Judy's youth mental health program.

But then we also want the centrally appropriated dollars that go with that half cut of that. Okay, so are people willing to do this generally?

Madam Chair, I move to reduce by half the evidence-based policymaking evaluation and support line under governor and also reduce by half the governor's office line under governor and use those funds along with what is left underneath the balancing goal with the LCS forecast to move roughly $731.5 million.

It's actually more than that.

Okay, $750. $750,000 into whatever the BHA workaround thing is that we found. Well, I think what we heard was it would be best to just direct that right to the lieutenant governor's office. Oh, and we're getting, here we go. Ms. Pope. We're going to need another chair. Ms. Pope shared her opinion yesterday, I think, which was that we should do a bill.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought it was a government program that was being run through the Youth Mental Health Corps.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel like a footnote is sufficient on this.

I mean, we will work with OLS to craft a footnote for you. Thank you.

Okay. Madam Chair, we have the P3 slash unused state owned real property bill, which was tabled a little while back. If you want that one. I don't want to take very long because we don't have very much time left. Fine.

We have another bill draft to take back up. This is based on also OSPB Comeback No. 28. AND THE UNUSED STATE-OWNED REAL PROPERTY FUND AND THE P3 OFFICE. IT'S ON PAGE, I DON'T KNOW, THANK YOU, 65 OF THE OSPB COMEBACK PACKET. AND I WOULD POSSIBLY PROPOSE THAT WE TAKE THEM UP ON, THEY HAVE THREE DIFFERENT REQUESTS RELATIVE TO THIS, WHICH IS TO, THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THE CONTINUOUS APPROPRIATION THAT MAYBE WE LEAVE THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION, BUT THEN THEIR SUGGESTION IS THE CREATION OF A STATE P3 BOARD. AND MAYBE THIS ISN'T EXACTLY THE RIGHT MAKEUP OF THE BOARD AND I WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE A DIFFERENT SUGGESTION. AND THEN REVERSE THE TRANSFER. YOU KNOW, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT VARIOUS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE UNDERWAY, SOME DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDCARE PROGRAMS. SO GIVEN THE PROJECTS THAT ARE UNDERWAY PERHAPS IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CONTINUE THIS WITH ACTUALLY SOME MORE OVERSIGHT are underway perhaps it would be appropriate to continue this with actually some more oversight

Madam Chair, the bill is written to do everything that was outlined in figure setting. So it includes the transfer, which is about $1.2 million. It includes changing the fund to be annually appropriated, and then it also includes some additional reporting requirements to the Capital Development Committee related to P3 projects, and requires a quarterly report to the JBC that lists basically an overview of different projects in the balances.

The continuous appropriation.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think in a lot of these P3 deals, I think is maybe the right word here, things move extraordinarily quickly, and having a group of folks that can be called in at a moment's notice that is separate and different from, like, say, for example, the CDC is, as far as I understand it, something that the Gov's office is very concerned about, ensuring they have.

Rep Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. So in your proposal, we would maintain the portion of the bill that moved this to an annual appropriation? Is that correct? Sorry, say that, state that again.

Senator Imabla. Thank you, Madam Chair. So does the creation of the State P-3 Board cost money? And because, I don't know, it looks a little bit elaborate.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I THINK ONE THING THE COMMITTEE COULD CONSIDER IS IT SEEMS JUST LIKE OSPB PROPOSED THE BOARD IN LIEU OF THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION, SO IF THE ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT IS WANTED, I CAN WORK WITH ALL US TO MOVE FORWARD TO DRAFT SOMETHING, BUT THE ALTERNATIVE OPTION IS JUST TO DO THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION. AND TO MR. VICE CHAIR'S POINT ABOUT HOW QUICKLY THE PROJECTS MOVE, ALL THE PROJECTS STILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CDC ANYWAY. SO THAT'S ALREADY IN STATUTE. THIS CLARIFIES THAT TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO DO ADDITIONAL REPORTING ON AN ONGOING BASIS ON A QUARTERLY BASIS AND THEN IF THEY GET APPROVAL FOR A PROJECT AND THEN DECIDE TO to say that they have to do additional reporting on an ongoing basis on a quarterly basis and then if they get approval for a project and then decide to change the anticipated use of the property

I'M... REP TAGGERT. REP TAGGERT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'm very uncomfortable with this, given what has occurred to date. I don't understand if these were viable projects that they list down below, why these didn't come through Prop 123 on either the Oedit side or the DOLA side. Some of the things they have done lately are sketchy at best. To me, I don't want to disrupt these three projects, but I don't understand why they can't come from one, two, three funds. If it's affordable housing, why? I just can't get comfortable with this at all.

Senator Kirkmeyer. I'm not a big fan of Gore, especially as it's made up right now, but how much money is in the self-sustaining fund? Ms. Bova.

Okay. Senator Crookbeyer.

Are you uncomfortable with the legislation that Ms. Bova produced for us? Because that is different from what the comeback is.

Well, I mean, that would be kind of in addition to it would alter the bill.

CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? YES, SENATOR KIRKMUR. THANK YOU, MADNESS CHAIR. MAYBE THE P3 OFFICE NEEDS TO DO THIS. SO IF WE ARE BUILDING AFFORDABLE AND OTTURABLE HOUSING UNITS, MAYBE A CHILD CARE FACILITY, I DON'T KNOW. I don't know. I mean, that seems to be a gig. I didn't understand that was what the P3 office was supposed to be doing, but it seems like that's what they think they're supposed to be doing. But at the parking lot, next to the governor's mansion, I would just like to know where I'm supposed to park when I go to San Diego. Because, I mean, there's no place to park around here. That's it. So they're putting that into an affordable housing unit? And then, what? I mean, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Where am I going to park? Where am I going to park? Maybe the PDs could... Do you know where we're going to park? Like an animal? Madam Chair. I don't think people don't need places to park, but you know, those of us who have to drive 25, 30 miles or more to get here to do things, we actually need a vehicle. We can't just walk around.

Senator Kirkware. Okay, well, I think we all understand I was being a bit facetious, but we had the understanding from the Centennial Building that they did their study that cost a bunch of money, only to come back and say that the plan that they had or the thought that they had wouldn't have produced a portable housing or even attainable housing, basically, for pretty much anyone. So I don't think their ideas are that well thought out, and that was just my other point.

Thank you.

Senator Mobley?

BUT OKAY. I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT IT IS A BILL THAT DOES NEED A SIGNATURE. AND SO I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE WHAT TO DO YET. MAYBE WE DON'T DO ANYTHING YET UNTIL MONDAY. Thank you Oh, Senator Kirkland.

All right. Mustard. Mr. Kim It's the mustard packet Are we still in the Yeah Colonel Kim Who's more dapper than Mr. Kim They are not Yeah, that would be wrong. Mr. Kem. All right.

Vice Chair Bridges.

Oh, no, there's two things in there.

Per education. AHEC common policy adjustments. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of six to zero. Thank you, Mr. Kemp.

Anybody need more detail?

How does the money get into the housing support fund? Affordable housing support fund.

Just checking.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the remaining piece of the mustard packet, informational adjustments based on March forecast for housing funds related administrative adjustments staff rec.

MS. We can start.

MR. Yep. THE $50 MILLION SUITE, DOES THAT JUST GO IN THE TRANSFER BILL? OR IS THAT IT'S OWN THE ANSWER TO THAT? I don't know either.

In the transfer bill?

Senator Kirkman With regard to severance and just a idea that or thought I had on how we could get ongoing general fund savings So for those of you who don't remember, I'll just kind of back up a little bit. Severance dollars come into the state. Half goes over to Department of Local Affairs. There's a formula over there that goes to education and local governments and grants. The other half comes over to the Department of Natural Resources. Of that, half of that goes into what's called the perpetual account, which is where all the water projects basically are funded out of. I mean, not basically, they are. So Colorado Water CWCB. And then there is the severance tax operational fund. So I'm speaking directly only to the severance tax operational fund, not the perpetual fund. I don't want to touch the water projects at all. I don't also, I know there's been suggestions, myself and Senator Bridges and Chairwoman Sirota met with Director Ferrandino this morning with some ideas again on how do we get some ongoing general fund savings. So there are several programs that are within the severance tax operational fund that are being funded out of there. and they are in statute, but they are funds that go to the Energy and Carbon Management Commission. That's about $6 million. There is the Colorado Geological Survey, which is about 1.8. The Colorado Avalanche Information, 1.3. Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety, 5 million. Colorado Water Conservation Board, 1.2. and then the Colorado Parks and Wildlife State Parks that goes it's 2.2 million I'll just finish reading them all off since I got started there's the Species Conservation Trust Fund 5 million the Aquatic Nuisance Species Fund that's 4 million up to 4 million the Soil Conservation Grant Fund which is 700,000 and then there's the CoSWAP program which is wildfire mitigation which is 5 million The governor's office is proposing a $50 million sweep. I'm not opposed to that. This would be in addition to the $50 million sweep, is that instead of some of these programs, and we are working with OSPB, with Director Ferrandino, to see which ones we can fund from either like the wildlife cash fund, the Parks Cash Fund, the Energy Carbon Management Commission Cash Fund, and even the CWCB Construction Fund, and also the Agricultural Management Fund. We're working with them to see if there are some of these that we could fund out of other cash funds, not the operational count, and then take whatever dollar amount that is, and it could be anywhere from $25 to $32 million, most likely more like around the $25 million. AND USE THAT TO FUND GENERALLY GENERAL FUNDED POSITIONS THAT ARE IN THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. SO WE WOULD REFINANCE GENERAL FUND POSITIONS WITH THE OPERATIONAL SEVERANCE DOLLARS. AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD GET THE ONGOING SAVINGS, GENERAL FUND SAVINGS. SO THAT'S THE IDEA ON THE TABLE. TALK TO DIRECTOR FERRENDINO. We don't have any feedback from him yet. So I know we had this discussion this morning. I know I may have said something a little bit different this morning, but I would propose that we go ahead with the $50 million sweep and entertain the proposal or the comeback or the thoughts from Director Ferrandino probably on Monday because I don't think he'll get him back today. Does that make sense?

Rep Taggart. Is that incremental to the 50?

Ms. Shen. Yes, Madam Chair. I think that's right. And so basically it's the projected ending reserve for at least in the severance tax operational fund and perpetual base would be similar to what was in the forecast. and what was in their original request in September, and then the November 1 request as a result. So I believe that's around the 10% reserve for 26 or 27. I can pull it up. Are you sure we're casting that what you're looking for?

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's right.

And we already did 10 million of that. Yes, you're not telling me?

Because actually, I think we were told it's a part of, but I don't fully know the answer.

I think it may be a part of the 53. So the additional amount that I see as a result of the additional transfers between DOLA and DNR would be then around $47 million. Okay.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. MOVE TO AT LEAST START DRAFTING ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

YES, MADAM CHAIR. IF YOU WOULD LIKE, YOU CAN INCLUDE IN THE TRANSFER BILL. I THINK THE ALREADY APPROVED DOLA PORTIONS ARE IN THERE NOW. WE COULD ADD THE DNR PORTIONS AND THEN UPDATE ALL THE NUMBERS IF YOU'D LIKE. 47, THANK YOU.

confirm with us.

Yes, just the sweep portion.

So I think it's around 47. We'll double check, but 47 across 25, 26, and then 26, 27, and that's the additional amount. And then you also have not yet approved the original DNR request, which would be an additional 13.3. That was the original, like, the R1, or not the R1, but, like, the original request as it came in.

Sounds good.

Yes. Okay. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Thank you.

No, that wouldn't be included in a transfer bill.

Okay. All right. Director Harper, do you have anything else for us?

Okay. Then I'm going to put us into a brief recess to see if there is anything else that we can take care of before 3.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Okay thanks

Yeah.

Ms. Bickle? So I'm aware of this alternative. I've been talking with various people this morning about it. Okay. just now about kind of what would be the preferred how to approach it. So it is certainly true. You've got the overall, the state land board revenue is split 50-50 between best and the permanent fund. The historically, I would say JVC staff has been concerned about making sure that money continues to flow to the permanent fund. and that's because the overall you've got this thing that's the state trust for public schools that was created basically at the beginning of the state. And we think of these two things as connected, the state land board and then the permanent fund, the permanent fund being the liquid portion of state land board revenue. A lot of state land board revenue is the majority is derived from oil and gas, right? which is ultimately something that will ultimately go away, right? And so there has definitely been some concern about not just diverting all that revenue that is coming from the state land board and putting it in. Even though public schools are really important, they do depreciate over time. Their value does not grow over time in quite the same way, not financially. So there's been concern about not completely eroding the value of the permanent fund in this overall trust for public lands. That said, the General Assembly has certainly decided to split the revenue half-half from the state land board with half going to best and half going to the permanent fund. You have historically at times diverted some of the money that would otherwise go to the permanent fund to, in this case, you would do it to the state public school fund, and you would use that to offset general fund. It is a real option, and based on conversations with the treasurer's office, it seems like, you know, particularly since we seem to have exceptionally high revenue right now, this might be a reasonable point at which to make a one-time choice to divert some of that revenue. I think I have some concerns that you know over the long term we get worried about if all All that revenue over the long term stops going, if we stop putting money into the permanent fund, the value of the permanent fund will erode over time, and so we worry about that. But that's kind of a big picture, long-term thing. And I think in the near term, if you want to do something on a short-term basis, you probably could do $50 million, $70 million that you've been talking about using that mechanism instead of actually reducing cash grants and charter school funding. It would be an option. Or you could divide between those things, right? you could do some reductions to grants and charter schools and take the rest from the permanent fund money or the money that would otherwise go to the permanent fund.

Okay. So move to- Madam Chair.

We could just account for it, perhaps.

Senator Kerfweyer. I would say I'm okay with going to drafting. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm okay with it though. And I would need to know because we capped BEST, BEST was capped last year in 1320. So I don't know like how much money is in the permit fund right now, what kind of interest is coming off of it, or even really because it's going to be the best fund. So it might be good if we could email us all even though it all kind of a flow chart thing Sure I mean there about billion in the permanent fund I think the most in 24 I think the earnings were about 11 total but not all of that

Okay. Rep Tigard.

Well, I think the, Ms. Bickle. I think if you were to do sort of all the money from this route, you could do it presumably for both the best and the charter component, I would think. That would be $70 million that would be getting diverted. I think probably Director Harper's and my initial reaction is that's a lot of money to not go to the permanent fund. But I think I have asked for an update on how much state, the latest updates for state land board revenue. I don't have those yet. I'll bring them to you. And you can kind of think about, is it enough that you would feel comfortable doing it on a one-time basis? Thank you.

Madam Chair, I know that time is running really short. I just wanted to, I'm biting my tongue for a minute, but I think the. The context is somewhat important here in that since statehood, the state constitution is required for the public school trust managed by the state land board that the proceeds of all sales of land go to the permanent fund. And it's abundantly clear the General Assembly cannot divert that money, period. What's happened is that the role of the state land board has changed dramatically. So the image when at statehood was that the land board would be selling off that land. It's turned out to be really valuable to have that land. And I think that the reason that the General Assembly settled on this particular model is that selling mineral rights and royalties is similar to selling the land in that you can only do it once. That oil can only be drilled once. and with the perpetual obligation for the school trust, the land board has historically taken this very seriously because when you sell that oil once, the General Assembly has chosen largely to treat it like selling the land because, again, it's a one-time sale that can't be redone. And that's the origin of kind of this treatment. There's an entirely different treatment for grazing fees and the land board owns an abundance of properties that are all over the city and all over the state doing other things with renewable revenue streams. But this stream that actually generates most of their money is treated differently, and I think the origin of that is for good reason because it is a lot like a land sale. It's not like you rent out an apartment and it just keeps coming. You sell the oil once, and so trying to honor their perpetual obligation, historically at least the land board has fought hard to treat this money as close to a property sale as they could. That's why it's treated differently. This comes up every time something similar to this comes up every time we have a budget crunch But I just wanted to kind of point out that one specific piece There is good reason that this particular stream is treated this way The General Assembly can make a policy decision there because the Constitution did not anticipate the amount of oil, shockingly, in 1876, did not anticipate the amount of oil and gas that would be sold off of these lands. So the Constitution was silent with this use, but that's the background on why this particular stream is treated this way.

Thank you, Director Harper. That was really helpful to know that. I just wanted Ms. Bickle to say I'm not trying to tell you $70 million. And I just want to make sure the relationship remains the same between our public schools and the charter schools. And I did not see that in this document. And that concerns me. Ms. Bickle?

Senator Mobley.

Correct.

Ms. Bickle.

Senator Mobley?

Yeah. And they do grow over time.

I mean, yes, and there's been a change in investment strategy so that it yields more than it used to.

We got five minutes. Senator Mobley, if you want to make your pitch on another $10 million,

Okay, yes.

Rep Tiger.

The amount of stuff you guys put with you is getting down. Senator Amabile just shared with the committee her thought to reduce incentive payments to the raise by about $10 million. And we're wondering your insight on that proposal and what impact it might have. That would be over and above what we already took. I think the policy considerations are the same as what you were looking at for the first reduction in that this is ostensibly what's motivating the Rays to perform this care coordination and the financial incentive for them to perform well on it. So if you reduce that, it reduces that financial incentive. If this is the route you want to go, my understanding of your intent, Senator Model A, is to reduce the funding for the raise, not for the providers. And the incentive payments, a large portion of it gets passed on to the providers. So in your motion, you would need to make it clear that that's your intent to take the money from the incentives specifically for the raise and not for the providers. And I think if you do that, the department could implement it. Okay.

And is that what we already did? Did we make that clear in the reduction that we already took to the incentive pay? Your original reduction was just to reduce the incentive payments, and it did not specify that it was coming from providers versus the raise. Okay. A large portion of the money, especially on the behavioral health side, a large portion of those incentive payments get pushed to the providers. So I don't know at what point you've wiped out all of the incentives for the raise. I don't know that I would encourage revisiting that first motion if you're going to do another $10 million on top of it. But it's also been an incredibly frustrating process trying to get the department to break out how much of the change in the incentive payments is going to impact the raise versus the providers. I still don't understand that. Okay. It just brings up another question because, you know, we're talking about provider rates and provider rates. When we talk about that, that isn't the provider rates for the capitated, for the raise who they contract with on the behavioral health side. So when we, they don't take a cut when we cut provider rates across the board, the providers that contract with the raise. Is that right or is that not right? We do not apply the, like an across-the-board provider rate adjustment to behavioral health because it's part of a managed care program and there's federal regulations that require that to be set to actuarial standards. Okay, but the RAE negotiates with them and they can negotiate, you know, whatever the market will bear, so to speak. Right. Yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got to go, but I'm very uncomfortable with this. The array in my region is running on a razor thin margin, and one of the reasons is that the capitation rates that they that they paying for services versus what they being reimbursed um um from the department are are miles apart i mean miles apart and i I don't want to see a good organization that has done great work for Western Colorado be stretched any further. And I think at some point they're going to raise their hand and say we're done.

Yeah, let me just say, I think the reduction we already took and what we were talking about wasn't to the behavioral health side or it wasn't exclusively to that. it was to the physical health side where they're just getting a pass-through. They build a HICPOP directly on a fee-for-service basis. So I don't know that that, I mean, we could specify just the incentive payments on the physical health side. But if it still million they can as you well know they consolidate their income statements between the two different parts of their business or the multiple parts of their business So whether it aimed at one or aimed at the other, it's still coming off of their bottom line. And I have to tell you, mine can't afford it. Just flat can't afford it. I can't speak for others, but mine can't afford it.