May 12, 2026 · Appropriations · 5,993 words · 10 speakers · 182 segments
. Thank you. Thank you.
Yeah, I'm kind of weak though. I bruise easily, thank you.
Okay, good morning. The Senate Committee on Appropriations will come to order.
We have one bill this morning, House Bill 1430, and I'm going to turn that over to Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, who is now Mr. Chair. That sounds great. Thank you so much. Before we get started on that, though, please call the roll.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about that.
Senators Gonzalez. Good morning. Hi. Colker.
Here. Liston.
Here. Helton B.
Here. Bridges. Just two more days in paradise.
All right, here we are.
Here.
Yeah, wait, wait, wait. Here. Well, that's right. Because we... Here's here for the calling.
All right, hello, everyone. Sparse audience today.
Oh, my mic wasn't on. Apologies. We're shocked. Yeah. Where is it? Don't forget about the millions of people listening. We sleep a little bit.
All right. We only have one bill on the docket today. Is that right? It is Madam Chair's, which is why I am running this, 1430. Madam Chair, Senator Mobley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1430.
I don't see your co-prime here. Should we just go ahead and lay this over?
No, we are not going to do that. We are going to proceed. He's stuck in traffic.
Ah, well, I understand that very well. Well, Senator Mabley, I don't believe you have any amendments on this. Are we the Committee of Reference?
No.
No. All right. Great. Are there any questions about House Bill 1430?
Senator Kirkmeyer. Well, yes. We need an explanation of the fiscal note.
Of course we do.
Senator Mabley. I am going to have the fiscal analyst come up and give you a more expert explanation of the fiscal note than I can provide.
Go ahead and introduce yourself and tell us about that fiscal.
Thank you, senators. Give me five seconds to pull this up for my notes. Is this working? I got one.
Your name is?
Oh sorry For the record economist Amanda Little I wrote this fiscal note So the fiscal note does a couple of things here There two different conditional parts of the bill The first is this conditional working group if the measure is withdrawn. And so that working group is facilitated by CDOT, and that is to identify approaches to increase state and local revenue for roadway maintenance. That working group costs an estimated $10,000 in FY2526 current year and then estimated $40,000 next year. That's from the state highway fund, so continuously appropriated. No appropriations required. And then the second larger component is the bill conditional on the passage of Initiative 175 would reduce several different transportation fees and taxes. those reductions total to a $226.7 million reduction in HUTF revenue in 27, and then about $500 million reduction in 27, 28 with similar amounts in future years. And so essentially what that means is that there would be basically like a revenue neutral impact to overall road transportation funding that wouldn't change that much compared to current law. and we would be reducing the TABOR refunds estimate and FY26-27 as a result of those reductions in HETF revenue. So that frees up general fund space to spend or save.
All right. Any further questions? Senator Kirkmeyer.
Sure. If we reduce the TABOR refunds by, I don't know, by these hundreds of millions of dollars, how do we fund the senior homestead or the homestead exemption? Yes. Thank you. Great question.
So that is expected to need to be funded through the general fund.
And so our current March forecast assumed that a portion of homestead would be funded through the general fund in FY28 for FY27 homestead requirements. So with this, we're increasing that general fund estimate by $136.1 million in FY27-28.
Sarah Kirkmeyer.
So how do you anticipate that or how do you define that as being revenue neutral if we have to pay for the homestead exemption because you've reduced the Tabor – because the bill reduces the Tabor refunds with the passage of 175?
Ms. Little.
Thank you, Senator Kirkmeyer. It's a good question and not one I feel super equipped to answer here. I guess the homestead, that's an expenditure, so that's not a revenue piece. So that's not considered a revenue impact in here. And overall, this bill is not revenue neutral in the sense that we are actually just decreasing HETF revenue.
Sarah Kirkbaugh, you can go ahead and dialogue.
Great, thank you. So, okay, maybe I misunderstood and I was trying to take notes as you were speaking, but I thought you said it was revenue. The revenue impact is neutralized because essentially the funding would still go to transportation funds. Is that correct? What did I miss?
Sorry, I was trying to say the revenue impact to transportation funding overall, like actual, I think I was trying to say expenditures on transportation funding are sort of neutral under this bill compared to current law. It's a decrease in road transportation funding compared to if initiative 175 is passed, but not a huge difference in the amount of money that is being allocated towards road transportation funding under this bill versus under current law.
Okay, so the revenue impact to transportation funding is basically about the same. Is that what you're saying?
Correct. Right? I mean, it's not going to be exactly the same, but essentially we're going to lower fees on the gas tax for the HUTF and then move those amounts over into a new fund, and that will fund transportation. But we're changing – but this bill changes the 60-22-18 to 60-23-17, 60% approximately of the HUTF will still go to the state, 23% to counties and 17% to so we're changing that in this bill so yes the the current percentage breakdown is close like you said to the amount in here but it is slightly different there's like a few different streams of funding that go into the AGTF and they each have different percentage allocations and so yeah the math breaks down to slightly different percentages yes and so then you also said that we would reduce the TABOR refunds correct correct and how much would we
reduce them by in 2627 and 2728 so FY2627 you're reducing TABOR refunds by 136.1 million because
that's the that's the full TABOR surplus for FY2627 so the revenue decrease is larger than the reduction in TABOR refunds. And then for FY27-28, it's just that full $500 million reduction in TABOR
refunds. Okay, so if our TABOR surplus happens to be $150 million
then in 26-27, we would reduce the whole $150 million?
Correct. Sorry, can you repeat that?
Let's say TABOR refunds in, I mean, I understand here
in the fiscal note, we're anticipating them to be $136 million
at this point, the TABOR refunds, in 26-27.
But if they grew to $150 million or $499 million,
we would reduce the TABOR refunds the complete amount up to basically $499 million?
So for FY26-27, it would be up to $226.7 million because that's the revenue impact.
So if the TABOR surplus was $226.7 million or less, you'd be reducing the entire TABOR surplus.
Okay, and so then in 26-27, if we are anticipating funding the Homestead Exemption Act out of that, out of the TABOR refunds, or out of the TABOR surplus, not the refunds, but the surplus.
I know it says refunds here, but it actually should be surplus, correct?
Correct.
Okay, so if we were funding the Tabor or the homestead exemption out of the Tabor surplus,
and we no longer would be doing that, we'd be able to do that,
so it would require us to fund the homestead exemption out of the general fund, correct?
Correct.
So basically not only the $136 million approximately that's estimated now,
but whatever the Tabor, whatever the homestead exemption is costing us,
which could be up to $200 million.
Correct. I don't remember the exact amount, but I think it's around $200 million.
And that would be the surplus for $27, right?
So that was paid out in $27.
That would be paid out in $27.
So it's the FY26-27 homestead requirement that then would be paid in FY28
with general fund and FY28 instead of the FY27 taper surplus.
so it wouldn't impact the taper surplus in 27 but it wouldn't be the the it
wouldn't impact the surplus that is being paid out in fiscal year yeah fiscal
year 27 calendar year 27 so surplus occurs because of what happens in taxes
that come in in 26 they get paid if there's a surplus and there's a refund
it gets paid out in 27. So it would not impact that
refund. It would impact the one in 28.
May I ask Mr. Lively the question? Mr. Lively.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pierce Lively, Office of Legislative Legal Services. Senator Kirkmeyer, I think what Economist Little is referring to is the difference in how we treat the homestead refund versus just the regular Tabor surplus, which is that this will impact 26, 27, assuming the measure passes, 26, 27 Tabor surplus either way. I think the distinction that she was drawing is that we pay the homestead exemption in arrears. So we'll be paying the exemption incurred in fiscal year 26, 27 with 25, 26 surplus, which we might not actually have. But then where this will start to be a where we'll start to really feel this for the 26 27 homestead exemption that we incurs in 27 28 because of the oddity of how we carry that over so we will be then re- senator kirkmaier oh thank god i thought it was still dialogue just the dialogue is
a one-on-one you can go ahead and dialogue with mr lively though okay thank you sorry
welcome to the hot seat mr lively so the hit to the general fund would occur in uh 27 28 Yeah, that's right, Senator Kirkmeyer, because we will, I mean, we might have a hit already to the general fund that's incurred, but that's not because of this bill in 26-27. That would be because we happened not to have a TABOR, or we may not have a TABOR surplus this fiscal year.
Okay.
Sorry, we're dialoguing. I do want to clarify, though, that there is a 2627 general fund reduction, even if that reduction does not impact the homestead payment in 2627, because of when the reduction in these various fees begins to occur. And that is that these begin Jan 1 27 if the measure is approved. So the hit does begin in 2627 in terms of reducing general fund revenue. It's just that there's a bit of a delay before it impacts our ability to pay homestead.
Okay.
And it would impact the general fund revenue by how much?
Ms. Little.
$45.5 million in FY26-27, so a reduction in general fund. Sorry, that was the expenditures.
I'm sorry.
Did you say $25-26?
$26-27.
Sorry, 2627, the general fund, there's no general fund reduction.
It's just the HUTF revenue reduction by $226.7 million.
So I'm sorry, you said no general fund reduction in, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
You're doing great.
Thank you.
So I'm sorry, you said there would be a HUTF hit in 2627 or a general fund hit in 2627 of $45 million.
Ms. Little.
So there's a reduction in general fund expenditures conditionally by $45.5 million in FY26-27, but there's no revenue impact to general fund. That's just a reduction in HUTF revenue of $226.7 million in FY27.
What table should I be looking at?
And that is if that portion of the bill goes into effect.
So this is all sort of predicated on ifs, ands, potentials, all of that.
Correct.
That's all conditional upon the passage of the road transportation initiatives.
Thank you.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
Okay. So in 2627, looking at Table 3, we'll divert to this new fund, $262 million of general fund. and looking at table 4A, our state expenditures will delete or will subtract $45.5 million from the general fund. Is that correct?
Correct.
So the transfer out of the general fund, we don consider a decrease or change in those general fund expenditures that just a transfer the the expenditure reduction I was talking about is it it from the lease purchase payments from the general fund so we were used to be paying those out of the general fund but instead now those are going to be paid out of the road support transportation fund. So is that the...
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So is that the bonding that took place from 260, 21-260, or what are those lease payments regarding? Because I thought it was a higher payment that year.
Go ahead and dialogue.
So the lease payments, these are from Senate Bill 17-267, and the full amount is higher than that. It's, I believe, $150 million, but $50 million of that is paid from the state highway fund. $100 million is paid from the general fund, but $9 million of that is, I forget exactly where that was tied up in, but so we only show a $91 million impact for the general fund as a result of changing those lease payments to be paid out of the support road transportation fund.
Mr. Lively.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, the Senate Bill 260 payments you're asking about are in Section 6 of the bill. Sections 3, 4, and 5 describe the payments that Ms. Little was just describing. So there are two different payments that this bill impacts.
Is there a table?
And is there, yes.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And is there a table related to Section 6 that would show me the Senate Bill 260 impact?
Ms. Little?
I am looking through the fiscal note to see where that is. There are many tables. Yes, there are. I don't know. No, that's not high enough either. At least not in 26, 27. So I think we do not have a table for that. It's just described narratively under the state diversions and transfers. The transfer portion is that piece. But, yeah, there's not a table.
So would it be, Mr. Chair?
Sir Kirkmeyer.
Thank you. Would it be in table three then?
That's where the diversions are.
I know you keep calling it a transfer, but you say diversion in your fiscal note here.
So is that part of the general fund or the cash funds? So the diversions, that is the, yeah, so the movement of the general funds money and the other cash fund money to the support road transportation fund. If you look under that, the summary about transfers, that is where we discuss the elimination of the general fund transfers to the state highway fund that were enacted from Senate Bill 21 to 60. So now instead, the general fund that's going to the road support transportation fund is supposed to be sort of replacing those transfers. And so where is the money that pays off the bonds from Senate Bill 21-260?
Because it's more than $50 million.
Yes. So that is the $50 million is a half-year impact for FY26-27, and then the future years it's a $91 million impact. So that comes out of the support road transportation fund after that general fund money is diverted into that fund. And, yeah, it's a $91 million full-year impact, which, again, is not the full amount because $50 million is already being paid out of the state highway fund.
Okay, thank you. And then may I, Mr. Chair?
Go ahead and dialogue.
Thank you. And then the bill pauses after three years, correct?
The impacts, correct, go through FY2930.
Okay. And so then if the bill pauses and 175 passes, what happens in year four?
Presumably these tax rates would just go back to the rates that they were before, and you would see an increase overall in road transportation, in revenue allocated towards road transportation because of that.
Because of 175?
Because of the motor fuel rates going back up to the current law rate.
Okay.
So 175 passes. It's a constitutional amendment. It's not going away. So what happens then with regard to 175?
Mr. Lively.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, so 175 continues to function the same even after this measure or this bill stops being in effect. It's just that this bill, which reduced non-175 dollars going to transportation, all of those reductions stop. So the way that the bill essentially works is it creates a fund to route the 175 money because 175 itself didn't do that. And that fund is used to replace some general fund dollars. And then various fees, registration fees, et cetera, are reduced. But then in a few years, if 175 passes and this measure stops being in effect, what will happen is 175 will remain in effect in the same way that it is for those three years, except for now the general fund and other transportation funding will come back online. And so we'll be at the same position approximately that we would have been in if this bill had not existed and 175 had passed. Again, approximately because of the way this all works out.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Caught me. Good job. Thank you. So effectively, it's putting a pause. If the constitutional amendment passes, it's almost like just putting a pause on it for three years?
Mr. Lively. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, I think I would phrase it a little bit differently because the way that the bill works is it may pause, if you will, the net impact on transportation that the measure would have. But as you pointed out, the measure itself is constitutional, and this bill does not prevent the diversion of funds required by that measure. That still happens. It's just that the funds that the state can control, because they're not in a constitutional measure, the state would be reducing.
Okay, thank you.
All right. Any other questions?
Sarah Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Basically, Mr. Lively, what you're saying is that if the constitutional measure happens and this passes in three years, we would be sitting better than we would without this, correct? For transportation.
I don't know if you need to answer that. I'm going to kick that to the sponsors.
Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question. I would say that this bill gives us a little bit of breathing room to figure out how to protect critical services in our state. And having three years to do that is helpful. But we're going to have to find a better long-term sustainable solution if 175 was to pass the muster of the voters.
Any other questions? Senator Liston.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lins, Senator Lindstedt. I'm curious who brought this bill to you. I mean, was this generated from constituents or who came up with this idea? Didn't you come up with Senator Lindstedt?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I think a very diverse constituency of interests and folks from hospitals to schools to the business community are very concerned about what will happen to our state of 175 passes. and that group and coalition have come together. I think you'll see them engage at the ballot box if this moves forward in November and to help on this legislative solution to try to take down this highly irresponsible measure.
Sarah Mobley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would just echo that this is a massive effort to bring this legislation to us and to work with all the stakeholders to try to come up with some kind of an agreement. And everybody is working around the clock right now to do that. But everyone in our state, from counties to cities to Medicaid recipients to Medicaid providers to hospitals, everyone is worried about the impacts of this ballot measure because it will have a dramatic impact on our budget. And we will have to cut services across the board, and people do not want that.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just respectfully disagree. I mean, to me, it's like you're holding a gun to the head of the voters that, hey, if you pass 175, there will be retribution. This seems like it's a punitive measure to me. I know you look at it differently, but, you know, it's that, you know, don't dare put more money into roads and bridges, which we've underfunded for years, because if you do, well, then we will take money from social services and make you feel the pain. It's just, you know, my observation.
Thank you for that.
I certainly would not characterize it that way. What we are trying to do is make sure that we as representatives of the people of Colorado are in a position to balance Interests across all the diverse communities that rely on us to make smart financial decisions
Thank you Thank you To the sponsors, thank you to the fiscal analyst and to the bill drafter for their explanation. I think what I find curious about this conversation, and I'm sure that this will be a conversation that continues on the floor, is that the questions that Senator Kirkmeyer and Senator Pelton have asked, and certainly Senator Liston's comments as well, I think that those are the benefit of – that's the benefit of going through the legislative process as opposed to going through the ballot initiative process. I would love to have this level of conversation, discussion, analysis, pushback, feedback, amendments to come through. But we don't have that benefit because 175 is 175. Full stop. So while I look forward to what I'm sure will be a lot of negotiations on behalf of the sponsors and what I expect to be certainly a robust dialogue on the floor, should this bill pass this committee, I'd love the opportunity to engage in such dialogue with the sponsors and proponents of Initiative 175. That's all. It's not a question. It's a comment.
Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm going to agree to a point that there is a benefit of going through a legislative process. Sometimes if you're actually included in a stakeholder process, not everyone, as we know, when bills are being presented, is everyone included in a stakeholder process. Just as the reason why I was asking so many questions is because I wanted to make sure and have an understanding of what this bill actually does, because I was not included in the stakeholder process for 1430. So, that's why I have to ask all these questions here. So, you're right. There is a benefit sometimes to going through a legislative process if you actually included in the stakeholder process But not all of us are and we know why that is and I not saying you had to include me I get it We all get to draft our bills and do what we like to do but that why we have so many questions in appropriations At least I do. But here's the thing. The people have the benefit of the Constitution, which requires or which allows them to petition their government. That's in the First Amendment, and they have that benefit. And their stakeholder process just so happens to be an election, and they have to go through and get a petition signed by hundreds of thousands of people in the state of Colorado before it can even get on the ballot, which in my estimation would almost be like a stakeholder process because they have to go out and explain it to people and ask them for their signature. And then there will be a whole big process about what it does and whether or not they want to vote for it. Same as what happens for us. Even though we don't get to go through the stakeholder process on all these bills, we get to have a conversation about it when it gets into committee or onto the Senate floor or other places as legislators that we get to have this discussion. So I think there's that to be said for what's going on here with regard to it appears that we're trying to circumvent the voters and the benefit that they have of the Constitution to petition their government by making it, you know, I should probably stop there. So with that, though, I do have an amendment that I would like to present, and it's L-009.
To the amendment. Any discussion?
I don't know if we're at that stage, though, so I will wait until you tell me we are.
You just moved it. We're good. To the amendment, any discussion?
Yes.
Senator Kirkman.
So L09 basically changes some dates around, which was the dates that were put in place yesterday in finance in L08 to put together a working group. Because I do think this is important that you should have, there should be a working group and see if we can't get this figured out. How can we make this work so that there are additional funds for transportation because people are screaming for me? We just heard a story this morning where one of our colleagues hit a pothole and wiped out two of his tires. And he had two flat tires. And maybe, who knows, you're lucky maybe you have to go in and get an alignment of your car. You know, I don't know. But anyways, people are telling us that they want more money to go to transportation. Now, is $175,000 the right way to go? And we'll find out if people agree to that or not. But at the same time, if there's the opportunity to put together a working group that sits down and tries to work this out, to figure out how we can actually get this done in a fiscally responsible, fiscally prudent way that allows for transportation funding and also allows for, you know, us to work within our budget and fiscal requirements that we have as a state, then I think that's worth a shot. And so I appreciate that a working group was amended into the bill, the Transportation Funding Working Group. I think it's a great idea. You know, I'm not going to argue about any of the members. I'm sure you've already had that argument. Hopefully you had that stakeholdering process that went through when you were working on this amendment. My concern with the amendment was is the dates and time and the kind of if we are not going to do this unless you pull down your ballot initiative. And from the other side, they're like, well, why would we pull down our ballot initiative when we have no idea what's going to come out of the working group? and if there's truly going to be any substantial amount of funds that are going to transportation. So it's kind of like there's a standoff here. And so I'm trying to help this along. And so amendment L009 puts in place essentially dates that are different than what was in the amendment that was passed in committee, which the amendments that were passed in the committee, or the amendment that was passed in the committee made sure that appointments were done by June 19th, The first meeting of the working group would be by June 29th. They would meet at least once every two weeks beginning the week of June 29th through the week of November 2nd. You can see we're already getting past the ballot initiative and the people who are doing the ballot initiative would have no kind of concrete, what are we doing? Like why would we pull down the ballot initiative? How much money is going to go to transportation? That still isn't decided yet. And then on September 7th, the working group would submit a preliminary status to the transportation committees in both the House and the Senate, it appears. But again, there isn't anything affirmative here. And then no later than November 13th, which again would be after the ballot, would be after the election, the working group shall submit a report to the transportation people, committees, and the work must include the working group's findings and recommendations to the General Assembly. Nothing here really about how there's any concrete dollars going to transportation. That's the concern of the people who are proposing the ballot initiative. So instead of this, you know, chicken or egg kind of thing, my amendment says look, that the committee puts in, has been placed by, I think it's June 15th anyways, that there would be some resolve by August 10th. Because if they're going to pull down the ballot initiative, we're all going to need to know by August 10th, August 15th, you know, no later certainly than like the third week in August because ballots start going out or ballots start getting printed and set about that first week in September. So I picked the date of August 10th because I thought that's a good date to work towards. That look, if we can get this figured out, we should be doing everything we can to get this figured out. I'm in agreement with that. Let's see if we can't come to some kind of working agreement and get there. But if I was on the other side and if this was my ballot initiative, there would be no way I'd pull down that ballot initiative without some concrete idea of how many dollars are going to go to transportation funding. No pun intended. Exactly. And from our perspective as legislators, I get it. We have to have an assurity that the ballot initiative is going to be pulled down, and it has to be pulled down, like I said, prior to somewhere in that first week in September. So I would say I would ask for an aye vote on this. Let's get the working group in. Let's see if you can hammer it out. Go forth. Get it done. And if you can't get it done by August 10th, you're not going to get it done, and everything moves forward as is.
Senator Mobley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Kirkmeyer. I have been in conversations with some of the parties that are involved in this, and this amendment, you know, has been discussed. and I think that everybody feels like this is too rushed and we won't get to a good outcome if we don't take the time that it will take to really do a thorough job. And I appreciate what you're trying to do here but I would respectfully ask not to adopt this amendment today and for us to allow this process to continue to be negotiated. And we do have all the parties at the table and I appreciate you jumping in and trying to help get things moving. But I don't think people feel like they're stuck. I feel like people think progress is being made, and we still have, you know, a day. So I would respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment, but I do appreciate your involvement in the process.
Senator Kirkmeyer. Well, I think this is too bad, quite frankly. because it's very clear that the proponents of 175 are not going to pull down their ballot initiative based on we'll come together and we'll figure stuff out and we'll get something done by November 13th. In the meantime, they're not going to pull down their ballot initiative because there's no guarantees that anything actually occurs. And I know from trying to work out these processes with, for example, Prop 108 and Prop 50 a couple of years ago that the proponents of the ballot initiatives and I'm not going to say these specifically but generally just speaking with regard to proponents of ballot initiatives, I felt like they've tried that before where they pulled down a ballot initiative, things were supposed to happen, they lose all their leverage, the things don't happen in a way that they feel is a fair compromise and then they're stuck with now waiting another two years before they can get a ballot initiative going and they just don't feel and I think this is unfortunate and I'm saying just generally speaking I did not ask the proposals of the ballot initiative this question but I just know my experience in doing negotiating to get rid of 108 and 50 that they just feel that they can't trust us and I think that's unfortunate. So it has to be done if we're expecting them to pull down the ballot initiative the ballot initiative has to be pulled down before that first week or so in September. I don't know what the exact date is but generally speaking that's usually when it is somewhere in that first week. And, you know, if we can't get it figured out by then, they're not going to pull down the ballot initiative, and we'll be moving forward, and I think the ballot initiative will pass because people are tired just like, you know, the good senator over there from Centennial who had two flat tires driving on roads. And most people don't understand when they're driving on a road if that pothole is in Denver or if that pothole is on a state highway or an interstate. They don't know where the transportation system ends for local governments and where it starts for state government. They just know that the transportation system in the state sucks. So I think it's unfortunate, but I would ask for an aye vote
so that there is the opportunity for the people who truly are the stakeholders in this to get together and see if they can't come up with something prior to the ballots being printed.
Senator Liston.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just kind of chime in briefly is that I would urge the committee to adopt L009 because I would consider it a friendly amendment. The good senator from Weld County, Brighton, I don't think she's trying to gut the bill far from that is saying, hey, look, just meet us part way. it's been mentioned that the legislative process we supposedly know better than having a citizen's referendum or a citizen's initiative, be it 175, all the others, is that we have the opportunity here to fine-tune things a little bit. And I think that's all that the senator is trying to do is like, hey, let's figure this out a little bit legislatively, and then we'll try and meet you more than halfway. So, you know, I think it's reasoned. It's, like I say, it doesn't damage or gut the bill. So I would urge an iVote on L009. We've got two days and no settled questions. Please poll the committee on L009.
Senators Gonzalez?
No for today.
Kirkmeyer? Aye.
Colker? No.
Liston? Aye.
Helton B? Aye.
Madam Vice Chair? No. Mr. Chair? No for today. That amendment is lost three to four. To the bill, any further discussion? Seeing none, please poll the committee.
Senators Gonzalez. Aye.
Kirkmeyer. No.
Colker. Aye.
Liston. No.
Helton B. No.
Madame Vice Chair. Yes. Mr. Chair. Aye. That bill passes 4-3. No consent calendar there, but that is the only bill we have. So with that, I believe this is probably the, is this the penultimate or the ultimate? Not going to jinx it. We're just adjourned.
Thank you. Thank you.