Joint Budget Committee [Mar 17, 2026]

. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. A little bit obviously we know that we are in a difficult budgetary situation and the LIST IS NOT AS ROBUST AS WE'VE SENT YOU IN YEARS PAST, TRYING TO RECOGNIZE THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN, THAT SPECIFICALLY YOU ALL ARE IN, AND SOME OF THE DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE. JUST JUMPING INTO THE LIST, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED MAINTENANCE LEVEL ONE IS TOP PRIORITY. THAT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT. IT'S BEEN RELATIVELY CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT MY TIME ON CDC THAT THAT'S USUALLY A PRETTY high priority. The Clark building renovation in addition was prioritized as number two. A lot of that comes from the fact that they did delay their project to help with some budgetary situations last year with a commitment that we would be supportive for them being able to do that. You have the campus utility infrastructure upgrade at the Colorado Mental Health Hospital down in Pueblo. And then where it comes a little differently is you start looking at the corrections projects. We didn't really change anything with the electronic security system replacement at the Colorado State Penitentiary. It's a relatively small project this year, $748,000. But we did take down the Delta fence project that was recommended initially and put that below the line. The Department of Corrections wanted that to reclassify beds. We, I think there was some, a lot of thoughts that went into that, but one of the main thoughts of taking that down and putting the Arkansas Valley project above it is that that's a continuation project. The fence was a brand new project. And so that was, I think, the consideration there. And then what we did with that, too, is the Arkansas Valley project was slightly less money than the fence. And so that freed up basically to keep it around the same dollar amount to input or put the testing lab relocation above the line. We heard testimony around that testing lab that they're basically testing diesel fuels next to cubicles where people are working. We found that pretty concerning that they are doing that and putting state employees at risk by being required to do that. And so those dollar amounts pretty much added up almost to a wash and so that we felt like we could put that above the line since the Arkansas Valley project was a little less than the Delta fence. And then lastly, the CDC has been pretty consistent, and I know maybe we haven't been on the same page with JBC, but pretty consistent with the West Hall renovation for the school for the deaf and blind, putting that above the line once again. We've toured the site. We've heard from them multiple times what this potentially opens up to AND THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT IT OPENS THEM UP TO AND REALLY THE NEED. AND I THINK THAT IT'S PRETTY MUCH UNANIMOUS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT THAT SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LINE. AND WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT. THIS IS, I THINK, THE SECOND OR THIRD YEAR THAT WE'VE BROUGHT THIS TO YOU ALL WITH IT ABOVE THE LINE. I think there's some pretty consistent strong feelings on that. Going down a little bit, we didn't really do much with the cash fund requests. There wasn't a whole lot of debate on that just because they are cash funded. I know you all have some questions, you know, on the property acquisition from Parks and Wildlife. It was our understanding, and we may be incorrect, but that there's a statutory requirement that those dollars can only be used for that. Bless you. and so not really we didn't really do anything there and then below the line there was I think some switching around of things just to show prioritization if dollars do come available but again I think that hopefully you all can see from what we've submitted to you that we are that the CDC does recognize the situation that we're in And, you know, we didn't bring you a robust list. We tried to keep it within the range that was given to us to not add to some of the problems that you're trying to already solve. Speaking of problems, and we'll get our forecast on Thursday, and it's entirely possible our problems will become greater. if we had limited resources do you think that you would prioritize for sure the controlled maintenance above all the other projects that are listed on this list i'm sure did i hear you right controlled maintenance level one yeah we have a number one on the list we think that that is that is a priority i think when we hear from the different entities you know it's it's definitely where we're able to, I think, from emergence, not the right word, but highest priority for some of their projects at controlled level maintenance one is a pretty big deal with a lot of these facilities. I think the other thing, Madam Chair, too, that controlled maintenance level one allows us to do is it allows us to touch a lot of these different areas that you can't necessarily touch with the whole list, if that makes any sense. And so I think based on what we've talked about, the committee definitely prioritizes controlled maintenance level one. Just checking. I feel like there were some years where it wasn't placed first. I think there's been some strategy there sometimes in the past, but I think that this year, I think that there's a high need for it. Okay. Rep. Story.

Senator Mobley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm curious where the $168 million number comes from. I guess I should know that, but I don't. Does somebody say to you, here's how much money you have to spend, or do you all just sort the projects and then, I don't know. Just where does that come from? Senator Milica. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that, Senator Amabile. Yeah, so we get a list from OSPB at the start of the year with the governor's priorities, similar to what you all do with kind of the budget. And so the list that we had from them had six projects above the line in value and with a total of about $167,800,000. and so and then the list that we are the the dollar amount we we put towards you is 168 million 258 thousand so so that's where that that number is coming from just and those are the projects above the line that total if that makes sense yeah so that's what's in the budget yes yes so So the, and I asked this question before and I just, this depreciation fund for the regional centers, the group homes, I think of depreciation as an accounting term, but these are actual dollars. And so I don't understand exactly what that is. Senator Mullica. Thank you Madam Chair That a separate kind of item box on our list and these are cash projects and so it not in the budget Yeah they cash and so we I we don understand what it means to say we going to spend this money on depreciation Yeah, we can we can definitely have the department come in and talk about that. We didn't we didn't we didn't change a lot in the cash funded projects just because they're cash funded. It's not it doesn't have necessarily maybe the budgetary impact that that the items above the line had, and so there wasn't a whole lot of change to the cash-funded projects. Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to your question about where does the, you know, $168 million come from, as long as I've been on CDC, which is since, you know, this is my eighth year, it is it does evolve from the governor's budget whatever the governor's budget identifies for capital construction is what we're supposed to shoot for but it's not an amount I don't believe that's set in stone or that is required you know it's just kind of a unwritten rule you know about how that plays out and And relative also to the cash projects, I'm sure our staff would be happy to share with you today. I'm sure our staff would be happy to share with you today about the depreciation fund for regional centers and group homes and how that all plays out. But we typically don't touch what's in the cash funded list. It's not a task for us to prioritize or whatever. But while we're there, I would also like to identify the capital complex renovation and footprint reduction and the $41.5 million that's slated there. I think we've had some discussion about that. And it does not, well, the last we heard, they are in sort of a stalemate about the next project, and that could be money that could be recaptured. Yes. Anyway. Senator Mullica. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just, I want to take this opportunity because DOC may come before you on this or speak to you on the recommendations that we had. when they presented to us last year even that the Arkansas Valley project they put you know they made it a priority and they showed us pictures and how bad it was and that's really kind of where we came into it as like hey we listened you know we should be doing this this capital renewal project at the time that we made this decision from what we're hearing now is that project will take beds offline I guess we weren't aware of that when we made this decision I'm not sure if it still impacts the fact that we may not have had the fence above the line. I think there's a lot to talk about even outside of just the dollars with that project probably that goes even beyond CDC and I think into our individual caucuses. But I just want you all to be aware that we made that decision because that is a capital renewal project. we tend to take priority for that so that they can finish the project understanding you know we hear them that that they're having bed issues but when we they no one told us about the beds being offline from that project and so that obviously going to be in your decision in your realm to make that but just wanted all to know that that that information was not given to us at that time i did want to ask about that because it perhaps not part of what you have to consider if you just considering the capital part of the request but did they share with you the number of beds and the cost or where they would plan to move those inmates to during this arkansas valley project completion yeah thank Thank you, Madam Chair. They didn't tell us that. That wasn't in the thing. I think, you know, it's impossible, in my opinion, I think it's impossible to just purely look at projects sometimes if you do have a viewpoint on the policy aspect that I think is going on with the Department of Corrections with the State of Colorado. And so that played a role, but when we made that decision, when we reached out and informed them that the committee was going to put the Arkansas Valley project above line instead of the fence, we were not aware that it would impact the beds. Again, I don't know if that would have changed our decision-making process because there was some strong feelings, but just for your reference, that that information wasn't available to us. Okay. Representative Story.

Senator Mobley. Well, so is some of it closed currently? Do we know? I'm going to guess it's not closed because if they have to move inmates, they must be in this wing. Well, is there a wing? I mean, they're doing a one wing now, or they were, or? I don't know the answer to that. Is the first phase complete? Maybe. I'm pretty sure the first phase was completed. And I don't remember them talking about moving people out in order to do it. I think it's somewhat dysfunctional, their showers and their drains, and, you know, it's old. And so the system, it's like home maintenance, you know, like after a while you have drains that are plugged and things that are not. We will check in with folks at DOC and OSPB, but our understanding is that inmates will have to be moved for this project. Staff just informing us that, like, initially this was a one-phase project, but we had to reduce it to make it multiple phases to kind of fit in, I think, with some budgetary constraints. All right. Well, anything else that would be important for us to understand in terms of your decision-making of putting together the list or things that stuck out to you that were very important? I'll just end, Madam Chair, is that I think you do see CDC trying to bring you a list that addresses concerns but stays within the budget that was given to us. Um, and then I will just add to that, uh, It was unanimous bipartisan out of the CDC support for what was above the line and the list that we sent you all. And so there was a lot of work. Senator Story put in a lot of work for some prioritization below the lines, but the CDC did unanimously recommend the list that we sent you. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Well, thank you. We really appreciate the work you have done to try and prioritize the overwhelming needs, capital needs, that the state has and how to bring that forward in such a difficult year. So thank you for everything and I guess more to come. Thank you. All right. I don't know if I'm supposed to recess this meeting or adjourn it. Okay. The Joint Budget Committee will stand and recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. WE ARE WORKING ON SOME JBC STAFF COMEBACKS. MS. YUELE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ANDREA YUELE, JBC STAFF. WE ARE IN COMEBACK PACKET 7 WITH THE MAROON HEADER. THE FIRST ITEM IN HERE FOR YOU IS A NEW ITEM FROM ME. SO THIS IS RELATED TO THE CAPITAL COMPLEX PROJECTS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH DPA. So there is another fund called the Capital Complex Master Plan Implementation Fund. And that fund was created in the 2015 legislative session. And basically what happened at that time was the state was paying off some existing COPs for the, I think it was for the Centennial Prison, and then was going to issue new COPs for the CSU SPUR campus at the National Western Center grounds. and basically what the bill did was set up the capital complex master plan implementation fund and said that the difference between the payments on the new COPs for National Western and the $20 million we were paying can go into this fund that DPA can use for capital complex projects to implement the master plan, which had been completed shortly before that. So basically now about $2.5 million goes into that fund every year, but it has to be requested by the CDC. So the CDC has to act on it and send a letter to the treasurer and say, transfer this $2.5 million to this fund. And for the last several years, that fund has just been emptied out into the capital complex renovation fund. So basically it was a similar purpose and a similar name and a similar function, but when they passed, when 22-239 was passed, the first fund was moved into the second fund for these capital projects. Anyway, based on the committee's action and the bill that you all have authorized for drafting to kind of wrap up the capital complex renovation projects, the only thing left is the centennial building, I believe we should also repeal this fund. Doing so would free up $2.5 million general fund in the budget every year because right now the LCS forecast shows that as a required transfer from the general fund to capital So if we repeal this part of statute repeal the fund that creates an additional million If you were not to do that, basically this money would go in the fund and sit there until DPA gets approval to use it for a future capital project in the capital complex. And this does require legislation, but OLA Legal Services has agreed with me that this can fit within the bill draft you already authorized to do the other repeals. Okay. All right. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to take the money. In the bill that's already going. To repeal the Capital Complex Master Plan Implementation Fund, CCMPIF, in the bill that this would fit inside of, not in new legislation. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. Thank you. Oh, do we need to put ourselves in recess? Sure, recess. Okay. The Joint Budget Committee will stand in recess. Thank you. Thank you. No, thank you. Yes. I don't know why. . But I was prepared to have papers. That's just going . It's a weird bug. The Joint Budget Committee will come back to order. All right. Mr. McClure. Thank you, Madam Chair.

My understanding of the statute was that this was permitted under Section 24-2503 in consultation with LLS.

And why did the administration think that the early literacy program didn't need the money?

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm with staff recommendation. So to be clear, there would not be support to change the law to make this allowable. No. I don't want to take money from the early learning literacy program just to move it over into the department or into the office of lieutenant governor. Okay. Well, I have doubts about the solvency of the marijuana tax cash fund given that apparently marijuana prices are at an all-time low, apparently. Well, maybe not all-time. Seriously down, I think, was the headline. I saw it yesterday. But I do think it is a shame. I had the chance to actually get to meet one of these youth in this program at a site visit I did that I think the lieutenant governor was at, too. And just hearing from them anecdotally is reflective of, I guess, what staff is presenting here about the success of this program. So it does seem a shame, and I hope somebody figures out a way to keep it going somewhere else, apparently not with these dollars. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff recommendation BA-1 and TCF balancing. Are there any objections? TAP houses on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. Yes, Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, like you, see real value in the Youth Mental Health Corps. I understand we can't take the money from MPCF, but I would love to figure out a different way that we could potentially get those funds over, at least some portion of those to support this effort. But I think if we did any of that, it would still require some kind of legislation. Senator Mobley. So I guess I'm just going to say what I always say, which is if people need mental health care, they should get mental health care. And asking kids to give other kids mental health care doesn't, I get the intention and maybe there is some good being done, but like people who need care should get care from professionals. DR. Well, I think what the program is doing is it's peer support like we have in other places, but it is also, it has to do with a culture change of changing what is happening in these schools, and that's what these kids have been doing is changing the culture and improving mental health outcomes for kids there. So, again, I mean, there are a whole variety of ways to come in mental health, and it doesn't all have to do with direct therapy. MS. Well, it doesn't have to be direct therapy. to care. And so it's actually, I'm not saying that they're not doing some good. It's just if we have a limited budget, I would rather spend it on getting people to professional help. Well, we didn't fund it, so. Ms. Bickle? I just wanted to clarify your action in the Department of Education on the early literacy issue. What you did actually was to say, make this decision independently. there's about a $600,000 reduction anyway in the MTCF figure in early literacy. So for other reasons that didn't have to do with this. So you're going to have to balance MTCF anyway. They aren't necessarily a tradeoff. So the $1,500, sorry, the $1.5 million that they were taking FROM THE EARLY LITERACY ALLOCATION WAS NOT REBALANCED SOMEWHERE ELSE? YOU DENIED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, YOU DENIED THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS TO MOVE MONEY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. WHAT YOU DID WAS, FOR OTHER REASONS THAT HAD TO DO WITH HOW MUCH MONEY YOU SPEND FROM THE STATE ED FUND, YOU DID A REDUCTION IN THE EARLY LITERACY FUNDING IN TOTAL ON MARIJUANA TAX CASH FUND about $600,000. Okay. But that's all you've done, and I'm not, and so there's no, you haven't acted to, if you like, move any other money from education. Mr. McLeary.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Office of Lieutenant Governor Leiden and M.D. Dale Staff Rec. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. Thank you. Mr. Thompson.

All right. I can't remember, but I think that Rep Taggart, was it Rep Taggart that asked for this? So I'm fine approving this, but if you wouldn't mind just making sure that he sees it later to make sure he doesn't want anything else, that would be good. I can do that, yes. Thank you. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff, Red Judicial Department, Office of Public Guardianship, RFI, for update on pilot program. All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. MS. WICCLE. MS. WICCLE. MS. I HAVE A LONG COLLECTION FOR YOU TODAY. OKAY, SO THE NUMBER OF THESE ARE ACTUALLY DECISIONS, OTHERS ARE SIMPLY INFORMATION YOU REQUESTED. SO THE FIRST ITEM IS YOU VOTED TO APPROVE A REDUCTION TO THE BEHAVIOR HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL MATCHING GRANT THEIR PROGRAM First item is you voted to approve a reduction to the behavioral health care professional matching grant program and we discussed that the goal was to provide general fund savings of million but there wasn't action on exactly how you were going to achieve that general fund savings, so this is the proposal based on communication with your analyst in the Department of Human Services. First, that you would refinance the remaining general fund in the Tony Gramps' line item, and so then Tony Gramps' would become entirely cash funds, accommodation, a marijuana tax cash fund and another fund source that they have in there, the Youth Services Program Fund. And the other was that you would make an adjustment in the SB 9194 program's line item, also in the Department of Human Services that provides kind of diversion programs for youth who become involved in youth services. So that's the proposal, but you certainly have other options. This is really just a trade-off between the fund sources in human services so that you would increase marijuana tax cash funds and reduce general fund. Senator Amobley. So I just worry if we're moving the funding source to the Marijuana Cash Tax Fund, but we don't feel like the Marijuana Cash Tax Fund is going to be solvent in the, you know, or maybe not solvent, but is going to have, we're going to need to make reductions there. Am I reading that right? We're just saying, okay, now your source of funding is the Marijuana Cash Tax Fund instead of the general fund? It is. Now, it's possible if MTCF is really looking insolvent, it could be that you can't do this piece as well, and that the reduction that you took in Department of Education, you know, will be needed to balance MTCF. However, the way I had presented it to you was that this would provide you general fund savings. So the way you would achieve general fund savings would be this mechanism. So, like, you could do this, and then if you determine that you don't have enough MTCF money, you could undo some of it. Okay. Anyone else have an opinion here? Senator Kirkman. I would suggest we hold off and wait until we see what happens on Friday. I mean, we've been saying we want to look at the MTCF and figure out where we're at. I mean, I haven't seen the list, I haven't seen the dollars, and we haven't done the forecast yet. So maybe we just wait. I'm fine waiting. I'm okay waiting, too. Fine. Okay. Next item, then, is a sort of technical change related to the educator effectiveness unit line item. This is a proposed net zero transfer of $200,000 from one line item, the Quality Teacher Recruitment Program line item, to the Educator Effectiveness and Recruitment, and to what is currently the Educator Effectiveness Unit line item, and to rename the Educator Effectiveness Unit line item. Essentially, you had $200,000 that was part of this TEACH program, which is a contract that is engaged in the recruitment of teachers across the state. And there a whole I mean there a website but there also sort of an active recruitment process where they really help people who are interested in the teaching profession understand what it will take to become a teacher and sort of help them take the necessary steps to enroll in programs. The department feels this is a really high priority. Strangely, in my opinion, for many years it was funded through a holdout footnote that was associated with the Career Development Incentive Program. You've now eliminated the Career Development Incentive Program so that footnote doesn't exist anymore. So the question is, how does the department, what's the mechanism for funding this? I think this is a more appropriate mechanism. is a net zero transfer is kind of making sure that there's enough money in an appropriate line item for this in the educator talent section so that the department can continue this program. And I know there's a lot of moving parts, but it is net zero, and it is intended to maintain a program that the department feels is an important high-priority program. Senator Kirkmeier. But is it even similar to what the $200,000 was... THE 200,000 THAT WAS GOING TO A DIFFERENT PROGRAM, ARE THEY EVEN SIMILAR IN NATURE? I MEAN, ONE IS CALLED THE QUALITY TEACHER RECRUITMENT PROGRAM, THE OTHER ONE IS THE EDUCATOR EFFECTNESS AND RECRUITMENT ADMINISTRATION. SOUNDS LIKE A DIFFERENCE TO ME. MS. BICCLE. ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS, THE QTRP PROGRAM, IS CURRENTLY QUALITY TO RECRUITMENT. THAT MONEY IS CURRENTLY USED. it's distributed to a bunch of different vendors that provide teacher induction stuff here and teacher training activities. Here we go. I'm looking for my additional information here. That program is used solely in that line item is solely for contracts with providers who place aspiring teachers in classrooms in locations throughout the state. So that's been an important program for you in your educator talent work. But this is also educator talent work. So this is sort of a conversation within the educator talent section of the department about sort of do we take a little from here in order to ensure that we still have this hand-holding process for teachers to help get them into the teaching profession because we're so short of teachers in the teaching profession. So they've got various different programs, which certainly don't fully meet the need for recruiting new teachers. They didn't want to lose this one. And what I told them was that I would bring to you something that ensured that this was funded out of an appropriate line item. Like I wasn't comfortable with just doing another footnote that said, we're holding out some money from some other line item in order to make this happen. It's better to have it in the right line item. And at this point, the educator effectiveness line item actually also includes all kinds of teacher recruitment activities. So I'm recommending you change the name of that line item so that it incorporates teacher recruitment activities, which are already in there, and that you move money from a line item which is not being used for administrative purposes. It's you being used solely for contracts with a bunch of other entities. And I'm sorry, that was probably clear as mud. Senator Crookmire. Why can't we just combine the two lines and take the $200,000 for general fund relief? Senator Krukmeier of course you can always take the cuts that you would like to take I don't know that I would recommend regardless combining those two line items. I do think they are for related purposes but not the same purpose. One is for contracts with providers and the other one is really for administration of a whole range of different programs related to teacher recruitment. So they are for separate functions. It is always your choice if you want to take a cut anyway, but the department was really trying to ensure that it had resources available in the area that was most important in this teacher recruitment arena. Okay. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff rec transfer a new name for educator effectiveness unit line item. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 4 to 1 with Kirkmeyer objecting and Taggart excused. Just rename all these things if they make sense. We need to save money. I don't care if they don't like it together. The next item is on page 11, and that is the teacher recruitment education program that you voted previously to phase out. AND I JUST WANTED TO TALK THROUGH WITH YOU SOME OF THE DETAILS, BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT YOUR VOTE WAS INDEED THAT YOU'D PHASE IT OUT. IT WILL REQUIRE A BILL. THE BILL IS IN PROCESS, AND I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE KIND OF MORE DETAILED MECHANISM HERE AND MAKE SURE YOU WERE GOOD WITH IT. SO WHAT I AM RECOMMENDING IS THAT YOU DO WHAT YOU DID PREVIOUSLY, WHICH IS FOR THE ASCENT PROGRAM, WHICH IS REDUCE THE AMOUNT BEING PAID TO DISTRICTS PER STUDENT from the current 10,721 to 7,140, and you do that for two years. This is a fifth- and sixth-year program. So then you would also say that no student will be allowed to participate in 27-28 unless they had also been enrolled in 26-27. So right now, kind of at the end of the month, The department will be having districts submit how many students they're expecting to enroll. So this is already the plan for 2627 is already rolling, if you like. So the idea is you'll allow the plan essentially to roll for 2627, but at a reduced rate to the school districts. So you will get about a million dollars savings from that. And then in the subsequent year, the program will be limited to those students who are already enrolled in 26-27. And then the program would end at the close of 27-28. So it would be a step down. That would give you about $900,000 in state ed fund savings in 26-27. It would become something like $1.6 to $1.8 million savings in 27-28. and then you would achieve the full savings of around $2.7 million in 28-29. There might be some offsets from the hold harmless provisions of the School Finance Act. I don't, that would need to be determined, and it kind of depends where you end up on school finance. There are, you could, there are some things you could do which are even more aggressive, which would be on page 12. You could, right now, there's a cap in the long bill of 250 students. They have, they're the last actual, year was 193 students. They've grown really, really rapidly. My guess is that if you didn't have a cap in the long bill, we would probably be looking at more than 250 students in 26-27. So I'm recommending just leave your 250 cap in place. That's what's been in place for a long time. If the department has to not give slots to everybody, that's what's going to happen in 26-27. but you could conceivably set a lower cap, and you could also conceivably say, well, gosh, we're only, the only students who can be enrolled are those who are already enrolled in 25-26, and then they can have their sixth year in 26-27, and then we're done. Okay. But that's an alternative. I think we should do that. Yeah. That? That. That. Okay. Do we need a motion for that? Yes, please. I move that. All right. I got it. You move the alternative that will only serve students in 26-27 who are already enrolled in the program. Yes. Okay. Do we need to vote? No. Do you want to clarify anything else before we... No, I don't think so. It just means we need a vote. Okay. All right. Are there any objections to that? That passes on a vote of 5 to 0 with Taggart excused. Okay. Next item is a bill for a technical change to Senate Bill 25315. This is something that was raised by the department, and I told that this was your post-secondary workforce readiness bill last year. They determined when the State Board of Ed was trying to figure out rules for this program, that there was a piece of the bill that could be interpreted to require the startup funds to go to, like, everybody. And every school would get some. That was not, I think, the original plan. It won't make those funds very effective. So the department's respectfully requesting a statutory change, and I said I would at least bring that to you as an option. I think it's a reasonable technical fix and aligns how you do the startup distribution with the language for the sustained part of the funding. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff rec bill for technical change to SB 25315. Is there any objections? Do you need a minute? I'm sorry. Okay. We're just authorizing right now for legislation, right? Yes. So we're not voting on legislation. MS. MS. What does it mean when you say diluted by too broad a distribution? MS. Can you say some more about that? MS. MS. Sure. So the issue is the definition of local education provider. MS. That makes sense. MS And the way the language is currently in the bill it says the startup funds have to go to local education providers but that would include as defined every single charter school So that an awful lot of charter schools And so it was going to become a huge number that would get a meaningless, tiny amount of money. And so this revised structure would allow money to instead go to select school districts, to the charter school institute for distribution to their charter schools, but wouldn't require like a formula distribution to every single charter school. So the issue, so then what is the. And it's not, I'm sorry. So the local, it's this, not in red here in your document, but it's this other issue. So this is the current definition, which is to, it's all charter schools. And so in your document, we're striking charter schools that are authorized by a school district and limiting these funds only to the charter schools that are authorized by the state. Charter Institute. Is that right? But then adding these subsequent sections. Adding these subsequent sections, which then says. And to be clear, it wasn't even, I think the way it was getting read is it might not even be just to charter schools. They seemed to read it that you would need to distribute the money to 600 public high schools in Colorado. was how the original language was being interpreted, and which really doesn't make sense. So what the fix would do would be it would give money to school districts and to the Charter School Institute. School districts have their own charter schools that are under them, so they would have access to that. Charter School Institute has other charter schools under it, so the idea is you could give it to all these sort of organizing entities based on a formula distribution rather than having to give it to individual high schools on a formula distribution basis. I will, you know, I will, this was the department's proposal. I will work with legal services and they might want to, they might suggest a slightly different approach to this language. I thought this approach was reasonable, but fundamentally it seemed correct that you didn't want to distribute these funds by formula to every single school. like it's only a few million dollars and it really was not going to be meaningful. I'm sorry to belabor the point, but how much money are we talking about here? And I guess I don't, so the post, it's a post-secondary workforce readiness startup funds. Right. So that is a program that prepares students for the workforce after they graduate. Vice Chair Bridges wants to tell you what we did last year. Thank you. I'm sorry to be done with you. But essentially this is the program to replace a whole lot of other grant programs we had that were various one-offs supporting what's known as the big blur programs in high schools, right? Workforce readiness programs. And this is a replacement that takes the very successful model from CDIP and applies that to all the various different sort of continuing education programs that students in high school can get that's education beyond high school. the problem that is being addressed right here that Ms. Bickle is bringing up is that the way we wrote it we're distributing directly to charter schools that are district authorized that not what we do that not a thing that school finance does And so this just corrects it so that we distributing to those schools in the same way that they get their pert pupil No levy equalization and that kind of stuff. They don't get no levy equalization. District authorized charters don't get no levy equalization. No, I mean, sorry, we're distributing to the non-district authorized schools in this, or according to Ms. If we change it according to Ms. Bickle's recommendation. That's what we're... Well... Sorry, maybe I misunderstand. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is... Right now as written, we're distributing... The challenge is that we're distributing directly to charter schools authorized by districts. Right. That's not how we give money to charter schools authorized by districts. The only change this makes is that... In other ways. In other ways, yeah. Like we don't... That's not a thing that we do. This would be the only thing that goes directly to charter schools authorized by districts. If you're authorized by a district, the district gets the money and then the funds flow through to the charter school. And that's all that this just corrects that frankly mistaken drafting that had that direct distribution to district authorized charter schools. It doesn't change the distribution to not the CSI charter schools. Okay. Thank you. We no longer have quorum. So I don't know how long that is going to last. We may need to stand in recess until 1.30. Probably. Okay. Do you want to go find out? Does she have a... She has a bill? Never said that. Yeah. She has a 2 o'clock bill. Oh. Guys. We got some stuff down between 1.30 and 2. Are you back at 1.30? Yeah. Oh, we have lunch. We'll make sure to be back. All right, well, the joint budget, I don't know, do you want to go from there or something? We'll stand on a brief recess, maybe a longer one in a minute. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. We didn't finish the item on the technical change for Senate Bill 25-315. Is that correct? That's correct. Do we feel like we're... Okay. Senator Amabley. Oh, I move. This. I move. Technical changes to SB 25-315 staff recommendation. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 4-0 with Bridges and Taggart excused. The next items that I have for you are all sort of just informational summaries. And the first few are ones where I tried to actually digest some information for you. Several members had asked that I come back with more information about the math accelerator program. This is one where the staff recommendation had been to take back money that seemed like it would be left over. The committee instead moved to end the program early and take back what is ending up being about $8.4 million. I did have a misstatement in my original presentation, so I did want to correct that. and that was there was a question about what the savings to families were related to this program. And I had misread a table from the department and thought that it was a total savings of $650,000. Actually, that was per grantee. So the actual savings for families in terms of child care and so forth is about double the cost of the program, which makes sense if you're providing childcare and tutoring that, like, that saves families considerable amounts of money. In general, there's, I don't think this is a bad program. This is in really none of the programs where I've recommended reductions are necessarily bad programs. It's simply that you can't, you are, it's a grant program. that means only some beneficiaries benefit And you don have enough money to continue this into the future So you can end it a year earlier or a year later The governor office has asked actually for a set for an extension That was part of the November letter, which it would be nice if we could put that to bed, because I don't think that's realistic this year. But in general, it just doesn't seem like you will be able to continue this into the future. So really the question is, and I am not making a recommendation that you do anything different than what you did, but I'm bringing back additional information in case you wanted to do something about it. The governor's office has, it's basic, in effect, it's worked out to a three-year program. As you can see on page 15, it's about $7.4 to $7.5 million per year. And so they had spent the first year, and then you had $16 million that had rolled forward into 2526, which was to be used in 2526 and 2627. So that was about $7.4 million a year for the program. Again, 22 grantees, 56 sites. According to the department, if you proceed as you originally intended, the savings would be $8.4 million. It's one-time savings. If you decided instead to let the program run its course, it would be about $1 million in savings, $1.1 million in savings. So that's the additional information on that. Senator Mambole. Did we do the thing where we got the $8 million? Yes. Okay. But it is a bill, so you have to be in agreement on it. Yeah. I mean, I find this painful because I think it is compelling that it's doing good things for people in Colorado, but I also just think given the other cuts that we have had to make, you know, this fits in with all of the rest of them. And I do think that you make a very good point that, you know, this is a grant program supporting operations at 56 sites, which compares to 1,877 public schools in Colorado, which are currently being underfunded. And so I, however unpleasant it is, I am comfortable staying with the bill draft that we have currently approved. Rep. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Pickle, I appreciate this write-up, and I appreciate you coming back with all this information. Can you talk a little bit more about this federal program that we get? Is it substantially similar to the program that we are doing? How does it differ? I mean, I appreciate that, like, we are adding capacity. We are adding additional funding to similar programs potentially through this program, but I'm just interested in sort of what other programs are out there, and does it go to every school, and I guess how does that work? Like other grant programs, it doesn't go to every school, right? That's sort of the problem in general with these programs. It is about $12 million per year. The grantees get the funds for anywhere from three to five years. It differs from the math accelerator program in that there isn't a particular math focus, The department has a whole graphic that explains what the differences are, but, you know, it is an out-of-school time program. So it is for before school, after school, and summers when students are not in, or fifth days when students are not in school It is at least something that is ongoing The federal government I think at one point it looked like they might pull it back but it not It's continuing. So this last year, it's $13 million, and that is expected to continue. Anything else? All right. Well, apparently we're proceeding, until we hear otherwise. The next one that, again, is just a bit more information is the school counselor core program. And this is one where you went from $12 million to $11 million. That's a budget decision. It was my recommendation. It's still my recommendation. This is one, though, where I think I noted that there'd been this recent evaluation of the program from DU that said, boy, it really doesn't seem to make any difference at all. And that way, except for most students, but it did make a difference for graduation and completion for students with a disability and English language learners. So I've just provided, you know, Rep Brown asked sort of what works about this program, And so I've included some information on page 16 about that. For sure, it does improve student counselor ratios, right? It about doubles them. That's the thing that it does is it pays for counselors in the grantees, in the grantee schools. The department has pointed out limitations to the DU study and noted that a lot of that DU study covered the pandemic time period. The department has certainly had multiple studies that said this is an effective program. and it's popular with school districts. And most districts, at least 66%, say that they intend to keep the counselors after the end of the grant program. Whether they actually do in the end or not, that is what they self-report, that they are securing funding to continue. I do think it is an ongoing question of interest whether schools actually can do this, right? But if all you're doing is you're really increasing school counselor ratios at certain schools, and then you move the grant program to somewhere else, and those schools just no longer have those counselors, I would say that doesn't make a lot of sense, and we should probably find a different way to support counselors at schools. But I also wanted to note the program was initially, it used to be JDC staff were really critical of this, and then in 2013-14 the department sort of redid the program, and it was considered quite effective after that but that that is just a little additional information about this program and I want to just generally express appreciation for the committee asking these questions there's a variety of different things that I pulled out of the department responses to your questions which I think are noteworthy so those are those were a couple of items I wanted to talk about more I think that the Senator Immobile's question about charter schools and best funding is also extremely interesting response. The narrative for a really long time has been charter schools are the poor stepchildren that they're not getting, you know, they don't get enough money and they need additional support. I sure that is absolutely true of some charter schools but data from the department specifically on the school facilities question contradicts that at the moment So their data says that charter schools are on average in better condition than district schools overall like by quite a significant margin on the facilities condition index. So we've got a tool that is evaluating the condition of schools across the state. So this is a pretty comprehensive look. And on average, charter schools are both newer construction and in better shape than statewide district schools. Charter schools have similar adequacy scores, meaning their buildings being appropriate for the functions they're getting used for. And in recent years, they're getting a disproportionately large share of best grants. So charter schools, that's about, make up about 15.4% of enrollment. And in the last three years, if you look at best grants, they have gotten 24% in one year, 18% in another, and 26% in another. So they are not being at all shorted in best grants. And then on top of that, you're doing this charter school facilities assistance program, which is over $42 million and is giving per pupil money to pretty much each charter school for facilities maintenance and so forth. It works out to about $380-some per charter school student. Right now there's also a federal grant that is further enhancing that. But I think Senator Amabile made a good point that it's 42.3 million is a lot of money if you think about that in comparison to the total best cash grants from which the charter schools are also benefiting. So if you were to make any change in this area, it requires a statutory change, everything. And so I don't know that you're making a change right now, but I just did think this was worth highlighting, that this is quite interesting data that I wanted to point out to you, particularly since even if you make no statutory change now, there's this increasing money that's supposed to be going to the charter school facilities assistance through 28-29, and then there's a cliff where it drops off by 15 million. So honestly, if nothing else, you might let that cliff happen, right, and not find some other way to give them an additional 15 million. But if we didn't fund this or didn't fund it at the level that it's funded now, we would lose federal funds? Is that what you're saying? Senator Model A, this is a yes, you would. There's a federal grant that was like a five-year federal grant of $35 million. And the way the federal grant worked was it started out giving you more money, and then the amount it gives you shrinks, and we're about halfway through now. So actually, the last few years of it are not that much. Whether they would come and say, oh, you owe us money back. Like, the problem is I don't actually know what the federal government's reaction would be if we cut the state funding. But so, you know, that could, that might be a consideration. But even if what you, what happened was you lost the additional federal funds for the next few years, I just know you're losing federal funds, match funds for many things you've had to take cuts for. So I don't think that on its own should be the reason that you wouldn't choose to make an adjustment here. But as I said, it is a bill because right now the whole Charger School Facilities Assistance is all driven by statutory formulas. Okay. And so we might get how much if we decided to do something with that? Like if we could just pick a number and... I think you'd pick a number. I mean, right now you've got $42.3 million. Of that amount, I think $12 million, maybe $13 million was extra money that came in from House Bill 24-1448, the new school finance formula. If you, and that money was taken out of the best cash grants, so you know there's a few different opportunities, ways you could approach this, which one option is that you would change this, but you would in effect let the best have more money to do more stuff. The other option is that you would take a reduction. The charter school facilities assistance, there's some state ed fund. It's part of the formula is funded by state ed fund, and part of the formula is funded out of the best, the public school capital construction assistance fund. So you would have sort of a choice if you wanted to do a statutory change there. So we could just put it back to best, and then these same schools could still potentially get the money. It's just that then they would be sort of on a more level playing field with all the other schools. That is certainly an option, yes. That's something I'd like to entertain. Senator Kirkmeyer. So how much of a reduction? How much? I would have to look at the numbers. I think it would be this year it would be 13 million. It goes up for a couple years to 15 million. It depends how you want to approach this, but if what you were talking about is the additional money the additional money that was in House Bill 24-14-48, you would be redirecting back into regular cash grants. I believe it would be 13 million in the first year, and then 14 million, and then 15 million in 28-29. All right. Thank you for the information. I found it enlightening. Okay. And the last item I just wanted to highlight for you was, Rep. Taggart had a question about sort of the facilities cost for the School for the Deaf and the Blind. And they are really a lot. And this is another thing where I don't know that there's some great alternative to this. It's just noting that it's a lot of money. You've got a school that's serving about 165 students, of whom 50 are on campus. And you've got like the West Hall Project, which I think there's a lot of intent to go forward with that, but that's or interest in as that's a 13 million for the first year, but then the whole project is 42 million, which includes both best funding and state public school capital construction funding. Then you've got kind of multiple years of additional costs that are kind of on the five-year plan for the school for the deaf and the blind. and you've got $35 million in controlled maintenance costs coming up for that school. I just, I don't know that there's a solution, but it's a lot of money. So otherwise, there's a lot of additional information. I won't go through all of it, but it's like there's READ Act information that you had asked for, information on other grant programs that's in here. So you can look at that at your leisure I appreciate you coming back with all of this Okay Senator Kirkmeyer do you have to go Yeah. All right. So the Joint Budget Committee will stand in recess until Senator Kirkmeyer returns. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. JOINED BY TREASURER YOUNG FOR COMEBACKS FOR THE TREASURY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMITTEE. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME HERE TODAY TO PRESENT. AND I ALWAYS KIND OF BEGIN THIS WAY, BUT I WANT TO JUST, YOU KNOW, SAY, AS A FORMER MEMBER OF THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE, I UNDERSTAND THE WAITING DECISIONS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU, AND IT'S, I THINK, FRUSTRATING TO FACE SHORTFALL WITH FEWER AND FEWER OPTIONS. I APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU'RE DOING. I also know how valuable your time is. Please know that I wouldn't be here unless I believe strongly that our requests are absolutely critical for the state and for the Department of the Treasury. Excuse me. First I want to thank you for supporting our operating expense requests. These services directly maintain Treasury's investment, accounting, and administrative functions. TODAY I'M HERE TO URGE YOU TO RECONSIDER THE FTE PORTIONS OF OUR SPENDING REQUEST. AND I MUST EMPHASIZE THAT THESE REQUESTS ARE ENTIRELY CASH FUNDED. YOU GAIN NO GENERAL FUND SAVINGS IN THE CURRENT BUDGET CYCLE BY DENYING THEM APPROVING THE REQUESTS THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR JUST ONE MORE TIME TREASURER YOUNG Denying them Approving the request Vice Chair Bridges Thank you Madam Chair Just one more time Treasury Young Treasury Young. Madam Chair, Senator Bridges, thanks for the question. I must emphasize that these requests are entirely cash funded. You gain no general fund savings in the current budget cycle by denying them. Thank you. Approving the request will have a critically important impact for our department and frankly for the entire state government. It allows us to use the cash we already have, cash generated from the hard work of the Treasury staff to make critical investments for the state's benefit. Over the next few minutes I'll walk through our spending requests and clarify key points. I'll begin with the R1 staffing request. I'm grateful for your support of the Accountant 1 FTE position, a role that will immediately benefit Treasury operations and impact the entire state. However, I'm here to request spending approval for the Administrator 3 position as well. Although we are the state's bank, we are not powered by dollars. We are powered by people. Our staff is among the smallest in the state government, experts who perform complex accounting and banking work to keep the entire state running. This staff does its work incredibly well, but I'm gravely concerned that our ability to work efficiently has been pushed too far for too long. Just two employees oversee more than 2,000 users across 200 bank accounts, managing day-to-day agency financial activity, revenue collection, and federal funds distribution. I want to repeat that. 2,000 users, 200 bank accounts, and this is often minute by minute, not just day by day. They also coordinate cash management for federal requirements for all state agencies. Every day, the team collaborates with banks to triage unusual account activity and unexpected transactions. This minute-by-minute monitoring is an important defense against wire fraud attempts, which are on the rise globally. Together, the cash management and accounting units hold up the state's entire financial infrastructure. One team receives and protects the money. The other team makes sure it gets to where it needs to go. We implore you to approve both positions, granting this spending approval is essential to meet our current needs, and granting it will meet our current needs and will allow us to conduct cross-training and secure round-the-clock oversight of taxpayer dollars. I also want to clarify some key points about our transaction fee proposal. This is a longstanding practice in the financial industry, similar to the fee you pay for wiring money or using an ATM. As Mr. Rickman mentioned, state agencies are already budgeting for these fees in their budget requests. The Treasury already collects them. We are asking to establish a dedicated fund for this earned income, this revenue, allowing the Treasury to transition towards a true self-sustaining model and substantially reduce, if not eliminate, reliance on the general fund in the coming years. Historically we have reverted some of these funds back to the general fund but given inflation and rising operational costs we reached the point where this is no longer feasible As the complexity and scope of state government has grown so has our transaction volume by over 20 over the past few years Retaining $310,000 annually, we have an immediate dramatic impact on the department and help us fortify a modern, resilient financial infrastructure for the state. I am requesting the committee amend the long bill footnote to allow Treasury to fully utilize the transaction fees it already generates. This is the simplest way to fund the 2FTE and move the Treasury towards a sustainable model. It does not ask for additional general fund obligation. I simply would not make that request to you in this budget cycle, given the landscape of what you are dealing with. Rather, it repurposes transaction fees in the department where those fees are generated for our department's use in this critical area. Next, I would like to respond to the unclaimed property discussion. It bears repeating that unclaimed property is not a state tax fund. It's been referred to by some people over time as a tax fund. It's not a tax fund. Statute is clear that unclaimed property is private money held in trust for the owner, not the state. I admit that I fully didn't appreciate this fact when I served on the JBC and even before that when I was a state representative on other committees. This program isn't a nice-to-have service. It is truly the largest and most effective consumer protection tool in the state, resting money away from companies both local and national that would otherwise pocket consumers' money for their own profit. Funds are not just returned individuals. In addition to people, we return lost funds to schools, municipalities, hospitals, and nonprofits, among other entities. For example, we recently returned $7,500 to the food bank for Larimer County. That money will provide nearly 12,000 meals for community members in need. The program acts as a direct stimulus for the economy. The dollars in return are spent on community services, groceries, and even used to pay down medical debt. This is the rare government program that delivers daily results for Coloradans, demonstrates clear progress, and remains entirely cash-funded. In most states, this kind of success would be rewarded. That's why I urge you to reconsider our FTE requests. As Mr. Rickman noted, we are already significantly understaffed compared to other states. This is holding back program growth and efficiency. In simple terms, we can't bring in or give back as much money as we should. The hiring of an additional auditor strengthens our consumer protection mission by enforcing holder compliance. That sounds very academic, so let me give you an example of what that means. Last year, through holder compliance efforts, we clawed back over $28 million from a crypto firm, allowing us to pursue the rightful owners of the funds. Investing in an additional auditor directly translates to millions of dollars in funds recovered for rightful owners. At a time when Coloradans are struggling to get by, we should be leaning into this consumer protection charge. Moreover two additional administrative positions will help us keep pace with rising claims volume We can quantify this impact something I know that interests the committee Each FTE we hired enables us to return a minimum of million more annually These administrative roles sound like they are simply data entry, but trust me, they are actually a significant customer service position. Our staff work closely with claimants throughout the claims process, responding to questions over the phone, email, and in person. We have to scan a lot of documentation to make sure the claimants can actually, their claim can be processed. And we make sure that money gets to the right address. Each staffer responds to over 12,500 claims annually. Our team is clearly efficient, but we believe Coloradans deserve even better results. When people find their lost money, they want it returned as quickly as possible. I know I feel the same way about my income tax return. Approving these positions will move us beyond the status quo, guaranteeing that Coloradans receive timely service while putting millions of dollars back into their pockets. That is what builds trust in state government, not avoidable delays and inefficiencies. Indeed denying these FTEs raises questionable contradictions. Stringing our ability to hire more staff even without a general fund impact creates a through line that makes it harder for us to return funds to the rightful owner. A cynic might say that the legislature is intentionally undermining the program to make it easier to use unclaimed property for state purposes. Plaintiffs in recent litigation have made similar allegations. Now, I don't believe that because I honestly believe that we're all looking out for Coloradans. But in the private sector, businesses can reinvest their earnings to improve operations and efficiency. We deserve the opportunity to do the same for the benefit of the public. By making smart investments in the program, we can get even closer to our program vision and give back more money than we take in annually. Now, I want to directly address proposals that would again draw from the unclaimed property trust fund, the UPTF. Past and scheduled transfers from the UPTF will total over $1 billion by the end of fiscal year 27, and up to $1.1 billion by the end of the decade. That represents more than 50% of the current amount owed to clients. Worse, that figure has yet to include another $30 million transfer proposed by the JBC earlier this month. Let me be clear. Continued use of this trust will put the general fund in harm's way. There is no guarantee that holder money will make up or outpace the state's liability. In fact, Louisiana and South Dakota had to convert their programs from general fund-based models to trust models to ensure they could pay claimants. This is no longer a theoretical risk. Drawing from the trust fund is a short-sighted idea at best and a dangerous one at worst, gambling with the general fund at the worst possible time. As I stated in our hearing a few months ago, no one is immune from legal challenges to the unclaimed property programs. States without trust funds face lawsuits, too. There is no magic bullet policy that will definitively shield us from scrutiny. Additional transfers could impact ongoing litigation. as well. While I cannot publicly comment on current litigation, I would be happy, Madam Chair, to set up an executive session with our attorneys general to provide additional context. There is potential for federal challenges as well. The more state lawsuits that pop up, the more likely a case will make it to the Supreme Court. That further raises the stakes for Colorado. We simply cannot afford unnecessary and costly litigation. Given these complex legal and fiscal considerations, we must press the pause button on any discussion of restructuring the program. I appreciate the ambition of this proposal. Unfortunately, it completely bypasses a responsible and thorough stake-holding process. By rushing this proposal and failing to vet it with claimants and industry experts, We are potentially trading a few months of quick savings for years of costly legal defense and a potentially flawed statute. My team worked years with national and state entities to develop and pass thoughtful legislation called RUPA. We did that in 2019. It took years of listening to craft a law that works for staff, claimants, and holders. The results speak for themselves. We've resolved 370,000 claims, totaling $416 million since 2019, actually since 2020, when RUPA finally went into effect. Let me repeat that. We've resolved 370,000 claims at the amount of $416 million. dollars. Claimants deserve to have their voice heard on this proposal, especially those who are rightful heirs to lost property. Right now, more than 3,000 property owners have opened claims for properties 25 years or older, a time limit suggested in the proposal. Very few states allow claims to truly expire after a period of time. Colorado's trust model is unique, unique in that we are the one of very few states truly upholding the right to personal property and preventing takings by the government. Watering down those principles not only weakens our fiscal standing, it weakens the moral contract between the state and its residents. As I close, I want to make one final recommendation that doesn't directly connect to our spending request. We agree with OSPB and HICPF that the adult dental benefit fund benefits payments should come from the general fund going forward. It is an ongoing liability for the unclaimed property trust fund that provides no meaningful TABOR relief. Shifting this transfer to the general fund is a responsible way to continue funding this vital program. Ultimately our request for modest cash funded investments in staffing and operational capacity are about safeguarding the state's financial integrity and protecting Coloradans' private money and property. By approving our FTE requests and allowing us to retain our transaction fees in a way that has virtually no impact on the general fund, you empower the Treasury to operate as a strong, self-sustaining bank and consumer protection AGENCY RATHER THAN PUSHING OUR STRAIN TEAM TO THE BRINK. I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE SEVERE AND UNNECESSARY FISCAL AND LEGAL RISKS THAT CONTINUE TRANSFERS FROM THE UNCLAIMED PROPERTY TRUST FUND POSE TO THE GENERAL FUND AND MORE IMPORTANT TO THE RIGHTFUL HEIRS OF THAT PRIVATE MONEY THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR CONSIDERING THE CRUCIAL ROLE property trust fund pose to the general fund and more important to the rightful heirs of that private money Thank you again for your time and for considering the crucial role that we play in the state's financial infrastructure. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions you may have about my presentation or our proposals. Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you tell me the cash management transaction fees, which cash fund does that go into? Madam Chair, I have Nick Welton here with me today. I think he's prepared to answer that. Mr. Welton, if you wouldn't mind turning the mic on. Thank you, Madam Chair. The transaction fees, oh, excuse me, Nicholas Welton, budget analyst, Treasury. The transaction fee revenue goes to the general fund. It's fund 1,000, but it's a cash fund and a long bill. And then it gets reverted at the end of the fiscal year. Senator Kirkman. And how much is getting reverted at the end of the year? Typically. This year, if all proposals were to be approved, it would be about $75,000 reverted back to the general vote. So not including the, sorry, not including the additional $100,000 that we're asking for this FTE, it would be $175,000 reverted at the end of the fiscal year. Senator Perkmar. So the cash management transaction fees aren't necessarily paying for all of the 40 FTE that were appropriated in 25-26? There's a lot of general fund there. Yes, that is correct. We have the current long bill is $890,000 is contributing to personal services for the admin division. All right, thanks. Treasurer Young. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator Kirkmeyer, if I may, I alluded to the fact that this pathway could move the department to a self-sustaining cash-funded only model. We don't want to do that in one year. We think there's some stake-holding that would have to be done with departments to prepare them, you know, for that kind of model. because as I mentioned in my testimony, they already budget in to the transaction fees, and so they need a budget cycle or two to be prepared to do that on their side as well. Senator Crickler? I'm trying to figure out how that would happen because I thought you just said it's $890,000 from the cash management transaction fees goes towards the 40 FTE that are in personal services line and administration. And right now I'm looking at the personal services line for those 40 FTE, and it's basically just under $3 million of general fund and $1.5 million of cash funds. So I'm trying to figure out how that actually works. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator Kirkmeyer, that would require not only a change in the footnote in the long bill, but probably legislation to make happen. So that's more of a long-range approach to this. I'm sorry, to make what happen? To make what happen? If we were going to completely self-fund from the transaction fees the operations of the Treasury. I don't suggest doing that in one action this budget year. Again, we want to have time to work with departments to make sure they understand how that would work and thoughtfully put together legislation to do that. Thanks. Any more questions? Any other questions? from the committee Vice Chair Bridges Thank you Madam Chair Just on the it won cost anything for the general fund It does mean that there will be slightly fewer reversions in the following year but that in this budget year and really in future budget years, we don't see that as like something that we have to expend in our budget. It's just simply dollars that maybe don't come in on the back end. In other words, we can say yes to this without impacting the bottom line this year at all. Madam Chair, Senator Bridges, that's correct. It's for the purposes of budget balancing, no impact. And I think we're all aware, and I know this having sat on the committee, that as you move into the next fiscal year, this is why we have supplementals, things change. There's, you know, always a flux of funds that have to be accounted for. maybe slightly less here, but, you know, it's subject to changes in revenue and everything else. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's paid for by the fees that are already being charged to various different departments and agencies to do this work. Madam Chair and Senator Bridges, yes. They've already budgeted those transaction fees, the full amounts, into their budget request. Thank you. Senator Kirkman. Okay, I'm looking at your personal services line for administration. It says you have 40 FTE and it's costing us $4.5 million. And we're only using $1.5 million of cash funds. And the rest of it, $3 million approximately, is general fund. So if we're going to refinance essentially general funded operations or general funded personnel in your personnel service line for administration, we should just do that. This is just, you're saying we should increase your FTE and refinance just that portion of it. with an increase. And I'm like, why aren't we just doing the ones we have now? And refunding and refinancing all that general fund. And I thought I heard you don't have the money for it. So essentially this is a general fund increase. Madam Chair, Senator Kirkmeyer, we're not suggesting doing that this but a year. That is a long-range proposal to make the Treasury self-sustaining through cash funds. This is a first step towards doing that what we're asking for now, but the department would pursue that over time. But again, the departments need a budget for that. If there's changes in transaction fees, they need to be alerted as the budget formulation process occurs for the following budget years. Okay. Well, seeing no further questions. Thank you so much for your presentation today. We appreciate it, and we'll follow up with any further questions. Appreciate that very much. Thank you for your time, committee, madam chair. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think we have a handful of staff comebacks to finish. Is that the next? Yes. So there was a packet that you should all have. I think it's the yellow packet. Maize. It says yellow. Goldenrod We probably could STICKY NOTES. Ms. Bickle, welcome back.

Okay, this will be passed, I would hope. So a question was raised by Senator Kirkmeyer. I thought very well founded about whether there might be some vacancy savings related to the annualization of Senate Bill 2524. That was the judicial officer's bill. And I've been in communication with the department, and it seems like, yes, we really can reduce that second year impact by 550,831. This does not affect the new judges that started July 1st, but all those staff that started. And based on what happened in 2526 with the new folks who came on, It took about three months. There were vacancy savings. So I think this is a good thing to do, to reduce your annualization. Now, it certainly doesn't eliminate it. So it reduces the incremental second-year impact from $4.7 million to about $4.2 million, but better than nothing. We'll take it. Good suggestion, Senator Kirkmeyer. Yep. We'll be looking forward to getting next year. Vice President. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to reduce the annualization for a suggestion in the staff memo from Amanda Bickle, March 17th. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. And just the other item is that Aurora domestic violence decision item. If you remember, you approved additional staff for the probation department related to Aurora domestic violence, municipal change, and municipal law, which was going to shift more responsibility to the state. You added 8.8 FTE that were staggered in beginning start dates in 25-26. The department apparently spread many of those staff around the state, but you asked for how many had gone to the City of Aurora area, and they said out of the 8.8 added in last year, there was one added to the 17th Judicial District and two added to the 18th Judicial District. So the others were sent to other areas of the state where there were probation officer shortages. You know, the department, I assume, will be coming back for other things, and so they can talk to you more about this situation. but your action thus far has been not to do any annualization for that item, but you asked this question, so I've just Brought you this specific answer. So we didn't annualize the 3.2 FTE. Exactly. So this, you know, and my packet had included an annualization amount for those staffs that would have given you, you know, it was for 467, 800, and 5.6 FTE. And you said no because they didn't use these FTE in the way we expected. Thank you, Madam Chair. So they get to keep the 8.8. WHERE ROUGHLY, NO, WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE EIGHT WE GAVE THEM LAST YEAR. AT THIS POINT, YOU'VE FUNDED THEM BASICALLY FOR 3.2 FTE. YOU DID. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T DO THE SECOND YEAR IMPACT. YOU HAVE THE BASE THAT YOU ADDED IN 2526, WHICH ADDED STAFF ON KIND OF A STAGGERED BASIS IN 2526. AT THIS POINT YOU'VE SAID, YOU KNOW, NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR 2627, SO THEY'LL NEED TO FIGURE IT OUT, RIGHT, UNLESS YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND. SO THAT... VICE CHAIR BRIDGESS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING. BUT WE'RE NOT LIKE WE GAVE THEM 8.8 FTE LAST YEAR, AND WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM KEEP 8.8 FTE. WE'RE JUST NOT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM THE ADDITIONAL ONES THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO GET THIS YEAR. OR ARE WE GOING TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THEM? YOU'RE, SO... START OVER. YOU'RE NOT, OKAY. First off, I would say there was a disconnect between your action and what the department thought you did. So the department thought you had approved their earlier comeback. So their budget request added like $1.2 million. I went back to all the old records. That was not what you'd done. What you'd said was 8.8 FTE to be added in 2526 but staggered through the year. SO WHEN YOU DID THAT, THAT ENDED UP BEING AN ADDITION OF 3.2 FTE IN 2526 AND ASSOCIATED FUNDING. MY RECOMMENDATION FOR 2627 ADDED THE ADDITIONAL MONEY SO THEY WOULD HAVE 8.8 FTE. YOU SAID WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T USE THE STAFF THE WAY WE THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO USE THEM. AND SO YOU DIDN'T MAKE A CHANGE, AS I UNDERSTOOD YOUR ACTION, YOU DIDN'T MAKE A CHANGE TO THE FUNDING FOR 3.2 FTE, BUT YOU HAVE NOT ADDED ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN 26-27, WHICH IN EFFECT MEANS THAT THEY'RE SHORT ON FUNDING FOR THE 8.8 FTE. BUT THEY HAVE A GREAT MANY STAFF IN THAT LINE. VICE CHAIR BURGESS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. What it sounds like then is that we're going to let them keep the funding for the three out of the eight that they've hired, out of the eight, almost nine, that were assigned to the 17th and 18th in Aurora. But we're essentially, because we're not annualizing this out to the full amount per year, then they're just going to have to figure out what to do with those other five. Yes, and they'll have to work it out across the different judicial districts, but they have a large line item with a lot of FTE, so it seems like that ought to be feasible for them to work out. Apparently they didn't need them in Aurora, which is what it was for. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just, you know, if they do come back on this, I just really, I struggle because last year we did this in a year that we really, like, didn't. Last year wasn't as bad as this year, but it still was a bad year, and we really heard them and we really understood like oh Aurora going to cause this huge caseload increase and like it irresponsible of us not to meet that If they do come back and I sure they will listen to this if they do come back, they need to really clearly justify why they thought they needed eight, and then they only needed three, but they went ahead and hired all eight people anyway and just put them in other places. That's not what I thought we were doing. And so they can keep the three they hired for Aurora. I was puzzled as well. Thank you. Okay. That was not for you. That was for them. Yes. Senator Kirkmaier. Did they receive any other FTE last year, additional FTE above this 8th May? I will have to go back and look. I don't think in probation that they did. I don't know if you, you might have given them like a budget officer is my recollection. maybe in the State Court Administrator's Office, a budget analyst got added perhaps. I would have to check if there was anybody else added. Yes, Senator Kirkmeyer. I'm sure over the course of the last three years, they received additional FTE based on what they thought they needed. I'd like to have justification and knowledge to know that they, where they asked for those FTE, that they actually placed them in those areas. They need to justify that to us at this point. Senator Kirkman? Okay. I'm just checking. Okay. They need to send us that information. Any FTE that they were appropriated over the course of the last three years, or whichever area it was supposed to be going to, they need to justify demonstrate to us that those individuals actually went into those areas as they said that they needed that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Scott Thompson, Joint Budget Committee staff. This is somewhat related to the issue we're all we're just talking about. Senator Taggart had asked for a footnote related to the Public Defender's Office for the increasing, increased funds approved for the Office of the State Public Defender. So this is that footnote. I WILL MAKE SURE TO SHARE THIS WITH HIM DIRECTLY ALSO SO THAT HE IS AWARE. BUT I'M RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMITTEE ADD THIS FOOTNOTE. THE OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T NEED IT. BUT I KNOW THAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD RATHER HAVE IT. AND I RECOMMEND THE COMMITTEE ADD IT. OKAY. VICE CHAIR BRIDGESS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I MOVE STAFF COME BACK PER MR. THOMPSON'S RECOMMENDATION IN THE MARCH 17th MEMO for the footnote for Roy domestic violence docket funding. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. Thank you. All right, Mr. Dermody. Thank you, Madam Chair. Tom Dermody, Joint Budget Committee staff. We're on page 5 of your yellow? Are we calling it yellow or are we calling it gold? Yellow. You all called it yellow, so that's... We're going to make the rules. We are on page five of your yellow comeback packet. This comeback is in regards to the statewide operating common policies, specifically the capital complex lease-based common policy. Staff is revising their recommendation for this common policy based off of the committee's actions regarding the Department of Higher Education's, history Colorado use or not use of the 1881 Pierce Street property That property is going to stand vacant about 88 88 thousand square feet That square footage would be and was covered by general fund. As a result of it standing vacant, that obligation for maintaining and paying for the maintenance of that property is now the Department of Personnels. In reviewing sort of how that would impact the common policy, it prompted me to sort of look at the methodology for using the excess cash fund balance, So a refresher on common policies. All common policies have a cash fund that supports them. Over time, some of those cash funds can build an excess balance. We use that excess balance to offset the costs of those common policies. Standard process is to reduce the total program costs by that excess balance and then allocate that remaining cost to the various departments. Staff is recommending to diverge from that methodology. And instead of offsetting the total program costs, use that excess cash fund balance to pay for a portion of the general fund cost for maintaining vacant property. overall this will increase the total cost of the common policy by about three million dollars but it will reduce the general fund obligation for that common policy by about 1.3 million less than staff's figure setting recommendation year over year compared to last year it'll be about a half million dollar reduction in general fund for the support of the common policy. Essentially what happens is the various departments and state agencies who rent capital complex lease space will now bear the full cost of that program while the excess cash fund balance will offset a large portion, something like 86% of that general fund obligation for the vacant property. Staff is recommending that this change be made ongoing as that vacant property doesn't seem to be shrinking anytime soon. And so that cash fund balance in those out years would be used to offset that vacant property cost, which is exclusively general fund. Senator Kirkmeyer? What kind of costs are they having with vacant property? Right? I mean, this is a state-owned facility, state-owned building, and the last known entity that was in there is still paying lease space, or was, yet they're not in there they've moved somewhere else correct so are they paying lease space somewhere else too mr durman uh thank you madam chair i don't know what has happened to that because that that property for history colorado was intended to be for the storage of the various items my understanding is that they're maintaining their current facility i believe that is a private lease not a state lease so they that would be in a different line item that's not a centrally appropriated cost in terms of the costs for vacant property. Generally speaking, um, there, the costs are to maintain that property, uh, keep it clean, keep it operating, uh, allow for the potential, uh, for occupancy. Uh it not just shuttering the property and forgetting about it There maintenance and upkeep of those properties Um and that is determined by the square footage that vacant and times the anticipated rate for per square footage for that particular property so i guess i'm just trying to figure this out so like for example the centennial building It's vacant right now, correct? Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, it is mostly vacant. There is some occupancy of that building, but there is vacant square footage, yes. Okay, so the state agencies that have moved out of that building, they've moved somewhere else, and they're paying lease space in that facility if it's a state-owned facility as well? And then do they continue paying on the facility they vacated? Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, no. So if a department moves, let's say, from, for lack of a better way, we'll just use some examples, moves from the Centennial Building to the Capitol Annex, they would no longer pay the costs associated with the Centennial Building, but they would pay the cost for the square footage in the Capitol Annex Building. That vacant square footage in the Centennial Building would then become the responsibility for the Department of Personnel, and it would be covered by General Fund exclusively because there's no other fund sources to share that with. Hence, staff's recommendation to use the excess cash fund balance to offset that general fund cost. Thank you. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff recommendation, statewide operating common policies. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. Thank you, committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And that came from a capital construction fund or the state education fund?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff rec for Mr. McLear as outlined in the IT Capital March 17, 2026 memo. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. Okay. Director Harper, did you want to go over your memos or anything, or is that for us to have for later? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

I don't know. I don't know.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So how did we determine an $8 million cap is the right number?

Okay. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to adopt staff recommendation from Director Harper in the memorandum dated March 17 Placeholders Legislative Appropriation Bill Package. Madam Chair. Yes, Senator Brickner. I'd like to separate out the last one, 26, 13, 32. Okay. Except 26-13-32, which I'll make another motion for momentarily. Thank you. Are there any objections to placeholders for 13-33 and 13-31? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff rec for the HB 26-13-32 Legislative Department Cash Fund. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 4-1 with Kirkmeyer objecting and Taggart excused.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff rec from Director Harper and the additional general fund placeholders and the governor's submittal. No. Long bill head notes. That's right. Wrong order. Long bill head notes for FY2627. Any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. Okay. And the last one, Director Harper, is just for us to peruse.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. It seems that some of these in the impact of some of these we're going to need to wait until Thursday to know how to include.

Yep. So I think the last thing on our agenda is an executive session. But before we do that, I think everyone might use a break. Is it helpful to take a break and then come back and do that, or to put us into executive session and take a break? I think taking the break before. All right. Yeah, wait during executive sessions. Well, okay. You have to tape it. That's true. All right. The Joint Budget Committee will stand in a brief recess. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. legal advice from the Office of Legislative Legal Services. I also think it would be helpful to have this discussion in an executive session under the open meetings law. I move that pursuant to 24.6402, Section 3A2, Colorado Revised Statutes, the Joint Budget Committee go into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice from our attorneys on the conversion of Pinnacle. Did I ask him for a motion? Yes. All right. Vice Chair Bridges. You just asked for a move to executive session. I move to executive session. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5 to 0 with Taggart excused I didn get the scripts All right the joint Thank you. All right. Motion to move to executive session from the vice chair passed on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. And now the joint budget committee will conduct an executive session beginning at 421. The usual recording device will be turned off and a separate recording will be made of the executive session in accordance with section 246402-2D.51A CRS. Visitors, please leave the room for the duration of the executive session. Members of the General Assembly, JBC staff, and staff from the Office of Legislative Legal Services may remain. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. COMMITTEE HAS ENDED AND THE NORMAL RECORDING AND BROADCASTING SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN TURNED BACK ON. AND THIS NOW CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS OF THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.