April 21, 2026 · Appropriations · 6,191 words · 17 speakers · 361 segments
. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. It looks like we have now what we need. There was no proceeding. without the two senators. The Senate Appropriations Committee will come to order. Mr. Catlett, please call the roll.
Senators Bright. Here.
Gonzalez. Present.
Kirkmeyer. Here.
Coker. Here.
Liston. Here.
Mr. Vice Chair. Here.
Madam Chair. Here. We have, I think I counted, there's 15 bills today?
17 bills today.
I can't even count anymore. And we are starting with Senate Bill 36, and that is Senator Gonzalez.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 36 along with J002 and L4.
Okay, that sounds correct. I will just, well, I'll, does any, do any, are there any questions for the bill sponsors? We did have a little bit of a misunderstanding here earlier this morning, thinking that the 214 was an increase in general fund, but it's actually a decrease in general fund, so I'll just put that out there. They do get two, Department of Corrections gets two FTE, but they also save some money on having a lower prison population, and so that is that confusion. Senator Weissman.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I just want to note briefly for the record what's going on with L4. So we had a strike below in Judiciary Committee. We had a further amendment motivated by conversation with the Department of Public Safety to try to isolate and address their cost. Turns out their information systems are pretty particular in terms of what they can and can't track. I think there's been some discussion at the Budget Committee about that. we believed that we had struck the offending language in Judiciary Committee subsequent to that point. We identified that there were still a few words amounting to requesting data that was going to cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop the IT to capture. We don't need those particular data points that much. So what L4 is doing is striking the rest of any language that would purport to require DPS to undertake IT development. So with the adoption of four, that should totally get rid of their cost, bringing us to the net negative posture with respect to DOC that the chair mentioned.
Okay. I don't see anybody with their hand up, so are there any objections to J002? Seeing none, J002 is adopted. Are there any objections to L004? Seeing none, L4 is adopted. Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 36 as amended by L4 and J2. Mr. Catlett, please find out what the committee wants.
Senators Bright.
No.
No. Gonzalez. Aye.
Kirkmeyer. No.
Colker. Aye.
Liston. No.
Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes four to three. Thank you, committee. Thank you. Next up, we have Senate Bill 42. And that was not in your packet, but you should have it now. And let's see. I think Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I move Senate Bill 42.
Are there any questions? Seeing.
Yeah. Senator Kirkmeyer. Could you tell us what it does?
Okay.
Senator Weissman. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair and Mr. Chair, and I guess when the time comes, we can get into L4. So 42 is a bill concerning proper classification of revenues for state accounting purposes, same vein as a bill we considered last year, 173. I incorporate L4 into the discussion because it rather is going to streamline the bill there are a couple of terms in article 10 section 20 of the Constitution that talk about how accounting is to go for the purposes of the revenue limit Those terms are not defined. So over the course of decades in statute, we have been trying to properly define and classify those terms. In relevant part here, collections for another government and damage awards. The committee knows what a collection for another government is. L4 identifies one more, and that has to do with background checks. When the state is doing a check, a certain amount of money is paid by the person whose background is being run. CBI does most of that. CBI is under a legal obligation per federal law to remit $10 of that to the FBI for their work. So usually we talk about collections for another government on behalf of local governments relative to the state. This is an instance where we are actually collecting it, passing it right through to the federal government. So that would be a change offered by L4 when we get there. We've also identified that the state has a role in collecting and passing on tax on aviation fuel sales and excise tax. that too as a collection for another government. The introduced bill listed a number of things that I think are properly considered a damage award. You'll notice L4 is striking a fair bit of the bill. I would call the committee's attention to page two of L4 lines 11 through 13 in particular. We're wiping out about two pages and are going to focus on a smaller number of things to be classified as damage awards. One is victim compensation. There are some funds that flow into those pots of money which are set up on a perjudicial district basis in the nature of penalties and things paid by folks who are just a system involved. That is to be classified as a damage award. And then there's kind of a conforming amendment directing that the administration for instead of coming off the top of that is to be a straight general fund appropriation that's probably more transparent for committee purposes. The other one is within the much broader pot of money that is HUTF. There are some things that are essentially fines, damage awards if you will, paid into that stream. So those are identified for damage award classification and sort of by analogy to the streamlining of the accounting the accounting instead of going through the usual hutf formula those are allocated directly to uh state patrol for its road safety purposes that's at the end of uh l4 page three of the amendment so as amended that's what's going on in 42. Okay, any questions? I neglected to move L4 and J1. So I move L4 and J1 to Senate Bill 42.
Well, here, you go ahead.
I was supposed to move them, right? I mean...
Thank you, Senator Mamale. Is there any discussion of L4? Any objection to L4? Seeing none, L4 is adopted. Is there any discussion of J2? J1? Any discussion of J1 which is the amendment we assume was moved Any objection to J Seeing none J is adopted To the bill any further discussion Seeing none please pull the committee Senators Bright.
No.
Gonzalez. Aye.
Kirkmeyer. No.
Colker. Aye.
Liston. No.
Madam Vice Chair. Aye.
Mr. Chair. Aye. That bill passes on a vote of 4-3. Thank you, committee. Next up, we have Senate Bill 68. Senator Colker.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We have an amendment for the committee to remove the fiscal note. I move L-003 and also J-001.
Do you want to move the bill, too?
And with Senate Bill 68. I move Senate Bill 68 and the amendments L-003 and J-001.
Oh, just the L.
All right. I just move the L. 003.
Okay. Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsor? Seeing none, are there any objections to L003? Seeing none, L003 is adopted. Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to flag a yes on the bill today because the L003 got the fiscal note to zero, but I will be a no on the floor. Are there any other questions or seeing none?
Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of Senate Bill 68 as amended by L-003. Senators Bright.
No.
Gonzalez. Aye.
Kirkmeyer. No.
Coker. Aye.
Liston. No.
Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes four to three. Okay, next up we have Senate Bill 70. And I will take over again. Madam Chair, Senator Mabley. I move Senate Bill 70 and L013. To the amendment, any discussion of L3? Any objection to L3? Senator Kolker. Thank you. You said 1-3 and in the packet we have 1-1. Okay, I... It's in this... Senator Mobley. It's in this memo. Oh, I see it. Thank you. And Senator Zamora Wilson, if you want to come up. This is Senator Zamora Wilson's first time to the Senate Appropriations Committee, so welcome. Senator Zamora Wilson, any comments on L013? Thank you, Mr. Chair. None. that is the right approach to the appropriate senator mobile any comments
nope seeing none any further discussion of L 0 1 3 senator Kirkmeyer thank you mr chair I just want to make sure that I clear on it that it just takes away the auditing requirement yes yes senator mobile like oh sorry yes Yes and that was the remaining piece of the fiscal note was around the auditing
It makes it optional. And that moves us to a zero fiscal impact. Senator Kolker. Thank you. And can you clarify that it's optional for the local governments, too? Yes. Senator Mobley. Yes. Thank you. And Senator Kolker. Thank you. Since it would be moving the fiscal note just to let you know that I'll be a yes for appropriations, but a no for the floor In its current form. Thank you
Sarah Kirkmeyer Thank you, mr. Chair. Maybe you can explain to me then in looking at the fiscal note from before
It was dated April 14th and even the one from February 19th. There's There's a manual screen of all incoming records requests to identify and redact certain historical location information.
Is the manual screening part going away?
So we ran amendments in committee that helped to reduce the fiscal note, And then this is the last piece of the fiscal note that the departments told us would get the bill to no fiscal impact. Senator Kolker. Sorry, Senator Kirkmeyer.
That's a first.
I thought for a minute there you didn't call me Senator Mobley. You look very similar. My apologies. Okay, I'll remember that.
Senator Kirkmeyer. So you ran an amendment to get rid of the part that required screening of all incoming records?
Senator Mobley. This amendment gets rid of the audit requirement. I think they must already be doing the screening of the incoming records, or they would have raised that as a flag, which they didn't.
Senator Kirkmeyer? Well, it was actually raised in the fiscal notes when I was reading through those.
The other thing then, I just want to make sure I'm an understanding. The judicial department, you've pushed this out to five days, and so therefore that would reduce their fiscal note that they had on, the $1.2 million, $5.4 FTE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We actually made it 30 days of data retention, and it's three days of access to the... Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry about that. Yes, just to confirm and verify what you're saying, it was three days that they could go back, that amendment. Any further discussion?
Senator Kirkmeyer. So in the original fiscal note, though,
they said that one was based on... Was that one based on three days, or what was that based on for the Judicial Department and their warrants and why their expenditures were or why they were saying there was a huge fiscal note because they said something about, I have to go back and figure out where I saw this, something about like 1% or something like that, and it was going to drive this huge fiscal note. Senator Mamale. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. We changed it from three days, from 24 hours to three days, and we have our fiscal analyst and our bill drafter here, and they could also answer these questions. Mr. Gazer? Hi. Owen Hatch, Office of Legislative Legal Services, the Judicial Department was exact. did in committee it was struck out of the bill so that's why the fiscal note doesn't no longer
affects it senator kirkmeyer so the judicial department doesn't think they're going to
experience an increase in warrants and court order requests go ahead and dialogue all right now go ahead and introduce yourself uh thank you mr chair colin geyser i'm the Fiscal analyst for the bill. Legislative council staff. I'm sorry.
Can you repeat your question for me, Senator Kirkmeyer? Senator Kirkmeyer.
Thank you.
So in the original fiscal note, February 19th, the judicial department said it would experience increase in warrant and court order requests seeking judicial authorization to access historical location informational databases.
And they went on. And this is what was driving this huge fiscal note, the largest part of the fiscal note. And so now that's got changed. but there are still going to be increased warrants and court order requests, and they're still going to have to go back and look at and access historical location data. So I'm wondering why their fiscal note disappeared. Mr. Gazer? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Based on the way the bill has been amended, it would significantly reduce the workload for the judicial department, and I know that based on the original bill they were exempted from the provisions of the bill. Okay.
Senator Kirkemeyer?
Okay.
Based on the original fiscal note, however, there was a huge fiscal note put on for the
Judicial Department. And in the assumptions, it talked about that there would be 155,000 warrant-related event codes statewide. That was in 2425. And that this bill would result in 1% increase. And that was based on, right, a shorter time period or they couldn't get to the information that they may want to get to. So then it was said, oh, no, now you can get it, you know, after a few more days. And somehow that magically disappears, the need for increased warrant and court order requests. Mr. Geiser? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe that judicial's concerns have been addressed through the amendments and some of the adjustments in the timelines. And perhaps Senator Mobley and Mr. Hatch can speak more to that. Mr. Hatch? As the bill was introduced, Judicial thought that they would have to seek warrants for their own internal searches, which was driving the huge note. And now Judicial has been exempted from the bill. So any resulting warrant requests that come from law enforcement are not going to further exceed the workload that they are currently undergoing.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
And so they're absolutely clear, judicial is, that should this bill pass, they're not going to come back through the budget process and request additional funding because now they're going to realize that they actually do need this. Mr. Geiser. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, judicial was clear to me that that was the case. Great.
I hope it was clear.
Senator Kerkmeyer.
Thank you. I hope it was clear to their legislative liaison that it's the people who like to come lobbyists at the budget for additional funding.
Okay. Seeing no further questions or discussion, the question before us is, I believe, still the adoption of L13. Are there any objections to L13? There is an objection. Please poll the committee.
Senators Bright.
No.
Gonzales. Aye.
Kirkmeyer. No.
Coker. Aye.
Liston. No. LISTEN. NO.
MADAM VICE CHAIR. AYE. MR. CHAIR.
AYE THAT AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED ON A VOTE OF 4 TO 3 AND JUST FOR THE RECORD I WILL BE A YES FOR TODAY on this bill since that amendment gets the fiscal note to zero I will be a no on the floor Any further discussion of this bill? Seeing none, please poll the committee.
Senators Bright.
No.
Gonzalez. Aye.
Kirkmeyer. No.
Coker. Aye.
Liston. No.
Madam Vice Chair. Aye.
Mr. Chair. Aye. That bill passes on a vote of 4-3. Okay, thank you. Okay. Next up, we have Senate Bill 117.
Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 117 and L-005.
Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsors? Any objection to the adoption of L-005? Seeing none, L-005 is adopted.
Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of Senate Bill 117 as amended by L-005.
Senators Bright. No.
Gonzalez. Aye.
Kirkmeyer. No.
Coker. Aye.
Liston. No.
Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes 4-3. Okay. Next up, we have Senate Bill 131, and we have Senator Ball here. Would you like us to move J-1 and L-007 or just L-007? I Yes, please. And I believe Senator Kolker was going to move Sure. L-007 Okay. Senator Kolker Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Bill Sponsors for agreeing to this amendment I move L-007 Senate Bill 131 Committee members Any objection to L-007?
Senator Kirkmeyer Could you explain please what L-007 does?
No, I was going to let it just pass through without doing that.
Just checking.
Senator Coker.
Thank you. Yes, this actually removes the proposition bet restriction, so it keeps proposition bets.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
So will it reduce the fiscal note to zero?
It will actually increase revenue.
Okay, but will it get the fiscal note to zero?
Senator Colker. Senator Ball, maybe. I'm not sure. Well, I don't know. Okay, Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can speak to that. It does not reduce the fiscal note to zero. Originally, the fiscal impact to revenue of the bill was approximately $2.4 million. This reduces that to $0.8 million, so it does not reduce the fiscal note to zero, but it does greatly reduce the fiscal impact to revenue of the bill.
Senator Liston. Thank you, Madam Chair.
To Senator Colker, what are proposition bets?
Senator Colker. Thank you. They are bets, instead of just betting who's going to win or lose, but betting on, let's say, the final score, betting on, let's say, in the next possession, they're going to punt or not in a football game. That's a proposition bet. So betting on specific items in the game,
not just the results of the game. Okay. Okay Are there further questions about L7 Are there Senator Ball Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to be clear that this is a friendly amendment that we support. That's good. Okay.
Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of L7.
Senators Bright. No.
Gonzalez. Aye.
Kirkmeyer. Aye.
Coker. Aye.
Liston. Aye.
Mr. Vice Chair. No.
Madam Chair. Aye. Reluctantly. That passes 5-2. And now the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 131. as amended by L7.
Senator Kirkmaier.
Thank you.
So what is the fiscal note now on the bill?
Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the fiscal note now is originally the, if you look at the fiscal note that was introduced, or sorry, with the introduced version of the bill, that had state expenditures of about $230,000 in the first fiscal year, rising up to a little under a million in the second fiscal year, down to $250,000 in the out year. That remains the same. That's the fiscal cost of dealing with the data collection that's coming in from the bill. What this amendment does to the fiscal note now is the state revenue, which was originally projected to decrease by $2.4 million in the next year, will now decrease by only $0.8 million. So just adding that up for the budget year of 26-27, you know, cumulatively that's a little over a million with the impact to both revenue and the expenditure. And then that's, you know, if you apply those same adjustments to the out year, it's slightly more than that for 27-28.
Senator Kirkmeyer. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so is this also the bill that basically will be on the hook for money in the water fund?
because it will decrease money to the water projects in the state of Colorado? Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. So right now, last year, the money from the water fund was a little under $40 million, between $35 and $40 million. We don't know how much it is this year, but it looks like it will be somewhere between $45 and $50 million. All this bill does for fiscal impact is the budget year 26-27, the projected revenue will rise to $69 million. Without this bill, it would have risen to $70 million. Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since we're talking about it, what does that represent in terms of dollars lost by Coloradans to gambling? I mean, it's not like they're going to the store and paying taxes and they get like a thing back. This is just pure loss. I guess the excitement of a prop bet. Like, oh, they punted. I can't believe it. So what does that represent in terms of money lost by Coloradans to gambling? Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a great question. So all of the revenue impact now comes from the portion of the bill that bans the use of credit cards and sports betting. And if you look at the fiscal note the fiscal note analyst stated that the fiscal impact of that will be limited to wagers by individuals with a gambling problem THOSE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL BE USING A CREDIT CARD WHO can switch to a debit card because they betting with money that they don have A fiscal impact of about We tax sports betting at a rate of 10%. So we're talking about a little less than $10 million of sports betting from individuals with a gambling problem. Thank you.
Senator Liston. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Senator Ball, just to be clear, so does this prohibit someone using a credit card if they want to gamble?
Senator Ball.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That's correct. So for online sports betting apps, this would prevent the use of a credit card. I'll note that 97% of the market is going in this direction anyway, so most of the major companies are restricting the use of credit cards on their platforms. So really this just closes the gap on the remaining 3% of the online sports betting market that is not voluntarily making this change.
Okay. Any further questions? Seeing none, Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of Senate Bill 131 as amended by L-007.
Senators Bright.
No.
Gonzalez.
Aye.
Kirkmeyer.
No.
Colker.
Aye.
Liston.
No.
Mr. Vice Chair.
Aye.
Madam Chair.
Aye. That bill passes 4-3. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see. Next up, we have Senate Bill 133 and Senator Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-003 and J-002.
Okay. Committee members, do you have any questions about the bill? Seeing none, are there objections to L003? Seeing none, L003 is adopted. Are there questions about J002? Seeing none, J002 is adopted. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of Senate Bill 133 as adopted by L3 and J2.
Senators Bright.
Yes.
Gonzalez.
Aye.
Kirkmeyer.
Aye.
Colkert. Aye. Liston. Aye. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.
Woohoo! Our first one today. Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill did pass
committee unanimously made against the consent calendar. Any objections? Seeing none, this
bill will be placed on the consent calendar. I do want to talk about it because it's so
cool. I'll pass. She can still talk about it. But not right now.
We'll talk about it on the floor. We will talk about it later. Next up we have Senate Bill 147 and do we have Senator Cutter or?
Yeah.
Oh, and Pelton.
147. Yeah. Okay.
So hello to the bill sponsors. We would like to move your bill and your amendments. Would you like to tell us what amendments you would like moved?
I think it's L8 and J2, but... That's correct.
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move Senate Bill 147 and L008 and J002.
Committee members, any questions? Seeing none, any objections to the adoption of L08? Seeing none, L8 is adopted. Any objection to the adoption of J02? Seeing none, J02 is adopted. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of Senate Bill 147, as amended by L-8 and J-2.
Senators Bright.
Yes.
Gonzalez.
Aye.
Kirkmeyer.
Yes.
Colker.
Aye.
Liston.
Yes.
Mr. Vice Chair.
Aye.
Madam Chair.
Aye. That bill passes unanimously, and it's passed unanimously out of committee.
Mr. Vice Chair. May I suggest the consent calendar?
Any objections? Seeing none, that bill will be placed on the consent calendar. Thank you. Next up, we have House Bill 1005. I see our bill sponsors are here. Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1005.
Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsors? I see one of our members is trying to escape. Okay. Okay, seeing no questions, there is no J amendment. There is just the bill. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1005.
Senators Bright.
No.
Gonzalez.
Aye.
Kirkmeyer.
No.
Coker.
Aye.
Liston.
No.
Mr. Vice Chair.
Aye.
Madam Chair.
Aye. That bill passes 4-3. Thank you, committee. Thank you. Next up, we have House Bill 1181. Oh, and we still have the same sponsor here. And Senator Marchman on 1181?
Okay.
Committee members, any questions? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1181.
Committee members any questions seeing none mr. Catlett please pull the
committee on the adoption of L I'm sorry of House Bill 1181 senators bright yes
Gonzales Kirk my yes Coker I listen yes mr Vice Chair Aye Madam Chair Aye That bill passes unanimously Mr Vice Chair Was this unanimous in committee Yes it was May I suggest the consent calendar Any objections Seeing none that bill will be on the consent calendar Next up we have Senate Bill 1183. No, did we just do that? No, we did 1181. Okay. House Bill 1183. And we have our bill sponsor here. Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsor on 1183? Seeing none, Mr. Catlett, please pull the committee on the adopt.
I did it again. Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1183.
Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of 1183.
Senators Bright. No. Gonzalez. Aye.
Kirkmeyer. No. Coker. Aye.
Liston. No. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair.
Aye. That bill passes four to three. Okay, now we're on 1184. Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1184.
Committee members, any questions on the adoption of 1184? Any questions for the bill sponsors? Seeing none, Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of 1184.
Senators Bright.
Yes.
Gonzalez.
Aye.
Kirkmeyer.
Aye.
Coker. Aye. Liston. Aye. Mr. Vice Chair. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously,
but did not pass out of committee unanimously. Is that right? Okay. Go back and do it again. Okay. Next up, we have House Bill 1187. And I see our bill sponsors. Committee members, Any questions for the bill sponsors on 1187? Oh, God, I did it again. Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1187.
You've become invisible to me. I don't know. Okay. Any questions on the adoption of 1187? Seeing none, Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee.
Senators Bright.
No.
Gonzalez.
Aye.
Kirkmeyer.
Aye.
Coker.
Aye.
Liston.
Aye.
Mr. Vice Chair.
Aye.
Madam Chair.
Aye. That bill passes 6-1. Thank you. Next up, we have House Bill 1188. Senator Colker.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1188.
Committee members, any questions on 1188? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1188. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee.
Senators Bright.
No.
Gonzalez.
Aye.
Kirkmeyer.
No.
Coker.
Aye.
Liston.
Aye.
Mr. Vice Chair.
Aye.
Madam Chair.
Aye. That bill passes 5-2. Next up we have House Bill 1194. And I know the sponsor was here earlier. Move to PI.
Senator Bridges Thank you Madam Chair I move House Bill 1194 Okay Committee members any questions for the sponsor Hopefully not since he not here
There he is. You're up. Yep. Things move quickly here in Senate appropriations. Except for when they don't. Except for when they don't. Senator Kirkmeyer.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Henderson, can you explain the .3 FTE in 27-28?
Senator Heinrichson. I do not know right off Senator Kierkemaier.
I think it's a sunset bill, and so it's already in the budget. It's a continuation. Why are they adding on? I think this is, well, Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My understanding of the fiscal notes for sunset bills is that they show the out-year cost as the amount that it is just yearly to do this. It's a zero in the current year because we've already appropriated the $86,000 to do that. And so there's no new FTE that's coming in. There's no new cost to the program. But the ongoing cost to regulate boxing in the state is $86,000, 0.3 FTE. And MMA. And MMA. Yeah.
Thanks. Don't want to forget. You wouldn't want to forget. Sorry, you're right. To regulate combative sports.
That's part of what we're changing is to be expansive of all combative sports rather than boxing.
Include fencing?
Oh, no. Okay, we've digressed. Does that include the legislature? Any further questions on 1194? Include flatbeds. Nope. No further questions.
I mean, Senator Heinrichson, just to be clear, you say you expanded it. Did that change the fiscal impact of it?
No, Senator Mobili or Madam Chair, did not. That was already included, but it had been carried over from when it was initially established as the boxing authority. Okay.
All right. Mr. Catlett, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1194.
Senators Bright.
Yes.
Gonzalez
Kirkmeyer
Aye
Coker
Aye
Liston
Right Hook
Yes
Mr. Vice Chair
Aye
Madam Chair
Aye That bill passes unanimously but was not unanimous out of committee Okay Next up We have House Bill 1197 Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsor on 1197? Oh, Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1197.
Now do we have any questions?
If I may.
Yes, Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am deeply concerned about zebra mussels in this state. I do not think the department is doing enough to combat zebra mussels. I recognize that this bill is not about zebra mussels, and I deeply resent other legislators that say, I want your bill to be about elephants. And I say, but my bill's not about elephants. And they say, well, I want it to be, so add an amendment that makes your bill about elephants. I won't be that person here today, but I do just want to flag that I think we are woefully underprepared and we are failing the people of Colorado with how little we are investing in stopping the spread of zebra mussels from the western slope to the front range It is watercraft that carry those larvae that cause this It is often not in our state parks where that problem occurs. I am deeply concerned, and I do not think that the department is doing enough. So I will be a yes on this bill because this bill is not about elephants. I have deep concerns about the elephants. We need to do something more about zebra mussels. This is my opportunity to say it. It will continue on in the House or in the Chamber, and this is the only time that I'll say this. So unless I get more information that I feel the need to share.
Senator Kipp.
Thank you. And yes, we had part of this discussion yesterday, Senator Bridges, and I sent you information. I'd be happy to share that information with the rest of the committee. BUT BASICALLY, THIS PROGRAM IS FOR THE LITTLE STAMPS THAT GO ON THE BOAT THAT REGULATE THE, THAT GIVE YOU THE NUMBERS AND EVERYTHING FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF VESSELS. IT'S ABOUT WATER SAFETY. THERE IS ANOTHER FUND, THE AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES CASH FUND, WHICH IS FUNDED BY THE SEVERANCE FUND, WHICH IS THE FUND THAT FUNDS THE AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES. YEAH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, SORRY.
Senator Bridges.
Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since we're going there, I don't think that severance is the right place to be funding this. I think that the fund that these dollars go into in this bill is the fund that should be funding this. I think that this is part of why I don't believe that the Department is taking zebra mussels as seriously as they need to. There is a taking from the fund that the zebra mussel fight currently sits in that we have discussed on JBC extensively. The department is familiar with my position and Senator Kirkmeyer's position on this. I am aligned with her on where I think these funds should be coming from. We sort of reluctantly agreed to keep the aquatic nuisance species fund where it was this year, but we are always fighting on that. Again, I think we are woefully underprepared for the consequence that a spread from the Western Slope to the Front Range would have, and we need to be doing more to stop it.
Okay. This is fun. Senator Bright.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would volunteer to sit on a committee with Senator Bridges with DNR to discuss zebra mussels.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
And I just want to be clear. So the cash fund revenue is that parks cash fund or a different cash fund?
Senator Kipp.
Get to that point. I accidentally recycled my golden ticket to get here. Parks and outdoor recreation cash fund. Never mind. I found it. Okay.
Mr. Kettlip. Side note for DNR there. Mr. Kettlip, please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1197.
Senators Bright.
Yes.
Gonzalez.
Aye.
Kirkmeyer.
Yes.
Coker.
Aye.
Liston.
Aye.
Mr. Vice Chair.
Aye.
Madam Chair.
Aye. That bill passes unanimously.
Mr. Vice Chair. Was it unanimous in committee? Yes, it was.
May I suggest the consent calendar? Yes. All right. Any objections? Seeing none, we will not have to talk about zebra mussels any further. That will be added to the consent calendar. We'll invite you to the JBC when we have that discussion. Okay, next up, our final bill today. This is House Bill 1280. We have our bill sponsor here, Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1280.
Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsor? Senator Kirkmeyer.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Is this truly a cash fund or is it originating as general fund?
Senator Judah.
I'm going to be honest. I wouldn't say Congresswoman. Can you believe that?
You never know. No, I can't. Senator. Go with governor. Governor.
Senator Bridges does not find that funny.
I do. I am amused. I will have to find out for you.
I am sorry.
I do not know. I wonder if one of our analysts knows the answer to that question. All right. I'm not seeing a ready. Okay.
phone a friend my hero please go ahead say your name and thank you Madam Chair John Armstrong Legislative Council staff I furiously Googling at the moment Madam Chair, if you'll allow me, my bill is truly about hemodialysis.
It's not about zebra mussels?
It's not, or elephants.
Well, actually, I do have...
Probably not croutons in the soup, either.
Is it about bending the curve?
I'm going to miss you.
I'm going to miss you.
You're going to still be here.
Where's your co-project?
He is sick, and so he is barely making it in today. He's been sick for a couple days.
We can continue. Okay. Mr. Catlett, please.
Oh, there he is. Sorry. Mr. Armstrong. Cash fund. But.
Would you like to elaborate?
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is licensing fee revenue from facilities, and we are tracking down the exact name of the cash fund for you but it not a general fund impact Okay All right Mr Ketlip please poll the committee on the adoption of House Bill 1280
Senators Bright.
Yes.
Gonzalez. Aye.
Kirkmeyer. Aye.
Coker. Aye.
Liston. Aye.
Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously.
Mr. Vice Chair. Miss Jess, the consent calendar.
Any objections? Seeing none.
Let me think about it.
Seeing none, that bill will be added to the consent calendar.
I can always pull it off if I want to talk about it. Depends on Senator Mollica.
Thank you. Thank you. The Senate Committee on Appropriations is adjourned. Thank you You shouldn we should want to do it Okay Thank you. .