House Finance [Apr 20, 2026]

Representatives Brooks. Excuse.

Here.

Excuse.

Here.

Here.

Mr. Chair.

We have a quorum. We have two bills. We have our bill sponsors here on Senate Bill 141. We've been joined by Representative Brooks as well. Who'd like to kick us off?

Representative Taggart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Something's wrong with your chair. I sat in it last week I had it lowered you're free to raise it if you'd like if I could touch on some additional financial issues having to do with this particular bill first off one of the one of the speaking points that the speaker just spoke of was the number of crashes in 2024 but I think there's another really important component is that the department estimates that some 67% of all accidents having to do with wildlife do not get reported. I happen to be one of those. Heading to an event in Craig two years ago having to do with just transition funds, I hit a coyote headed up Route 13 from those of you that don't know Western Colorado, that's from Rifle to Craig, which is one of the most serious areas of migration. And I looked for that coyote for about a half an hour, could not find him. But later when I got home, the estimate from my insurance company was about $12,000. to repair my car. I also want to bring to your attention that we have had four major projects that have gone through the Wildlife Crossings pilot program when we put general fund into this program. That was leveraged to the degree of $228 million worth of projects. Some of you may know these. The I-25 Greenland Wildlife Overpass, which was $22 million, US-160, and Colorado-151, what's referred to as Elmore's Corner, was a $59 million project. The I-70 Floyd Hill Genesee project portion, which received a $100 million grant from our federal government, and US-287 Wildlife Movement Project received $47 million. So every dollar that we can put into this is leveraged four to five times over by federal grants, and we are now about to apply for $80 million of additional grant funding as a part of this particular program I should also point out that this is not a new enterprise and I repeat this This is not a new enterprise. This falls under CDOT's bridge and tunnel enterprise, and 75% of the funds will be housed within that enterprise. So I don't want you to think we're creating a total new enterprise in this particular case. And I'll just reinforce to finish what the speaker spoke of. We need an ongoing source of funds for this. And for those of you that travel I-70 from time to time, and I would encourage you to come to Grand Junction and Palisade, as I did last week. but I don't encourage you to live there because we have enough people there. And I love our lifestyle and would like to keep that lifestyle. But for those of you that drive the I-70 corridor from time to time, whether you're skiers, whether you're hunters, whether you're anglers, etc., etc., you will notice immediately that I-70 in many long stretches is between wildlife to the north of the road or wildlife to the south of the road. So the road is, in fact, between the migration pattern of the Colorado River and or its tributaries, the Eagle River, for instance. And it causes four very serious interfaces with wildlife. And at 75 miles an hour, I can tell you that can be very problematic. Most likely, it is going to kill the animal without question. The question is what kind of injuries is it going to cause? And that migration in that area, Wolcott area in particular, if you're familiar with that area, is both elk and deer and can be really, really problematic. So I would ask for an aye vote on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick question. Look at a lot of the numbers here that you've got. Looks like we've got around 54,000 accidents that we've had in the state with wildlife, 48 human deaths that have occurred. It's more on a cost of $321 million. Do you have any numbers on what's the insurance impact for auto insurance, the increases that we've seen in some of those areas, and what's happening there? Do you have any of those kind of numbers?

Follow-up, Representative Hartzell.

An expression of astonishment for the record Representative Brooks Chair may I dialogue You may Thank you I figured I roll the dice on that request

You had mentioned, Representative Taggart, that this is within an existing fund. It's not a new enterprise. Can you please speak to being able to silo those funds and ensure that there's no fungibility with these going to bridge work, right, since it's within that existing?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 75% of it will go to the collision fund within CDOT. And it goes at the time that we register our automobiles and assume we select this option. We may be selecting also the option of keep Colorado wild, which is another component on this. But assuming we haven't opted out, those $5 will go to the bridge and tunnel enterprise, but specific to this collision prevention fund, 75%. 25% will go over into DNR for the purposes of enhancing habitats that surround these particular potential collision areas. And I have to hope that some of that will go to I-70 areas where I see this being very problematic and for sure Route 13 from Rifle to Craig because that is a huge migration of deer and elk in that area. And again, for the reason of water. Whenever you have water running alongside and the road is between those migration patterns, you're going to have problems. Those dollars can't be used for anything else. So that 75%, when it goes to collision, has to go for that particular purpose of building those infrastructures. So it can't be fudged into something else. Thank you.

You're dialoguing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No problem. I suggest mentioning like a roulette wheel or something. That might be a way to approach it. But in all seriousness, the bill spells out that local authorities will be involved in that. CDOT will be involved in that. The Division of Wildlife under CPW will be involved in that. And the bill is very specific that that prioritization will be done with input from those groups of which local is a big component of that. And certainly the local folks know as well as anybody where the where these infrastructures are needed.

I can give you the facts on each one, but there are three different approaches that can be taken. One is a bridge crossing, which is obviously the most expensive, and I would assume would be utilized selectively for really, really significant migration patterns. Then you have the fencing and ramp structures that you've probably seen as well, which I see more on I-70 than any other type of infrastructure. And when it lends itself and it can be tunneled, that's a third way. But in terms of which of the three is the most effective, unless the speaker has that information, I don't have it at my fingertips, but we could get that information. I can tell you on Route 9, and I'm going to test all of you folks, where is Kremlin? And who represents Kremlin? So Kremlin has had a 92% reduction in the areas where this infrastructure has gone through. And again, it is a major area of migration because you have the mountains to the east and habitat to the east, and you have water on the other side, both from a reservoir standpoint as well as the Blue River on the other side of Route 9, and a lot of migration in the area. It's very similar, quite honestly. Route 9 and Route 13 are very similar in that respect. They both go north-south, and they both go along corridors of waterways.

Thank you, Chair. Just wondering on just looking at Colorado Wild, it says, and maybe this is wrong, but just that it brings in $40 to $41 million annually. So I'm curious why we're doing a fund for bridges, but then we're, you know, these crossings and then diverting 25%. Why not just keep these programs clean and separated if Colorado Wild is getting that much already? And then how do we ensure that, like, say, in a budget process that we just went through, that these monies don't just get swept into the general fund like we saw so many others do?

Thank you, Representative DeGraff. So on your last question, I can never assure you that the General Assembly won't take actions to go after any particular cash fund. We can put it in the bill all day long that it's for this particular purpose, but you folks have that ability. I would hope that you wouldn because this infrastructure is necessary In terms of your first question the dollars for that 25 unless I'm incorrect, and I could be, but I don't think I am, that 25% is coming from the Wildlife Cash Fund, which is primarily for those of us that hunt and fish. it's not coming from keep colorado wild which is which is a fee um that that surrounds our entrance into parkland state parklands um so they are different from one another now again somebody's going to correct me i'm sure if if some small portion of that goes to the wildlife side of things, but I think the primary dollars from that side of things, and it's not unusual for wildlife habitat and conservation efforts for that particular purpose, come from that wildlife fund that comes from those of us that hunt and fish.

Thank you. But my understanding was that of this $5 fund, this fee, that 75% of it will go to the crossings and then 25%. Maybe I had that wrong on the, but why the diversion of 75% to one and then 25% to something else?

The reason for the 25%, 75% of the $5 is going to, for the purposes of the infrastructure, the 25% that goes toward the wildlife cash fund is, again, those areas, those migration areas that are very, very close to these crossings. crossings, also need conservation efforts, need other efforts to help this situation.

Any further questions from the committee? Representative Marshall.

representative taggart thank you mr. chair let me tackle the first part of the questions I would like to think that gifts and grants could help this situation. But as I think one of us may have said, the federal government is going to open up potentially $80 million worth of grants for Colorado, potentially for this year alone. And I'm not saying we're going to get $80 million, but we're going to apply for that. And in all cases, we need to have skin in the game. At present, it varies between a four-factor and a five-factor in terms of what we get in return from our federal partners. For us to do that on an ongoing basis, the word sustainable becomes a very, very important component. And I don't think any of us can sit here and say we can depend upon on an annual basis in gifts and grants the dollars necessary to leverage and open those grant dollars from the federal government. And I know I called out four major projects. So I would not, my statement would not preclude adding gifts and grants to this, but I think you would agree that that's pretty difficult to say that that's sustainable on an ongoing basis. And these are two critical of infrastructures not to. And so your second question is, could it fund one or two or three? I think a lot of that depends on the dollars. I happen to think that the departments are being very conservative in what they expect to come in. Because if you look at polling having to do with Colorado citizens, 87% of Colorado citizens recognize and support the addition of our additional infrastructure to help these migration patterns and avoid the killing of animals and individuals at the same time.

Yeah, I guess I just want to follow up because I'm just still confused how an optional fee for which there is no material benefit, which what the fiscal note says, how that isn't just a donation. I guess I would go a little different where you say there's no material benefit. The speaker spoke of the fact that from an insurance standpoint this is causing Colorado taxpayers billion a year If that not material I don know what is material And it's not going to yield overnight a reduction of X amount, but over a period of time, as you know, those rates are all driven by statistics. And as we can reduce those, that is a help to individuals. I didn't like my insurance company, quite honestly, to have to write off $12,000 on almost a brand new car for hitting a coyote. But it happens today. And God forbid it's worse when it's an injury to a passenger or passengers and a driver. Those are, I don't know about you folks, but the coyote's the first animal I've ever hit. And I, quite honestly, was not thinking about the damage to my car. I was just embarrassed that I hit an animal. and I couldn't avoid it because it was dawn. So, you know, does it have that direct like the parks does? No, it does not. But does it have an indirect cost both from a mental standpoint as well as an insurance standpoint? The answer is yes, it does, and it's significant.

Oh, Madam Speaker, my problem. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Representative Marshall, I would add that I believe this was on page four of our fiscal note. I think our fiscal analyst was comparing the pass to the collision fee, prevention fee, saying that probably fewer people would opt to pay that given that they do not receive a direct benefit themselves, where the Keep Colorado Wild Pass is a direct benefit to access the park. So I think that may have been his framing. but happy to have our fiscal analyst answer that question as well.

The Honorable Perry Will.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Emily Hathaway. I'm here on behalf of the Department of Transportation to express our support for SB 26141. I'm also joined virtually by Tony Cady, CDOT Region 5 Planning and Environmental Manager, for questions only, if it's possible to get him up as well to answer any questions that I might not be able to address. us. SB 26141 is a strong bipartisan legislation that would build data-driven infrastructure projects to save lives. Every year, Colorado sees an average of 5,000 reported by wildlife vehicle collisions. These crashes account for dozens of serious injuries and fatalities. Wildlife crossings, including engineered overpasses, underpasses, and fencing are proven effective tools. The success of projects like Highway 9 wildlife underpass near Kremling, which reduce wildlife vehicle collisions by more than 90% shows how targeted infrastructures can significantly improve public safety. Another state success is the I-25 Greenland Wildlife Overpass. This is the final component of an 18-mile mitigation system between Colorado's two most populous cities. This overpass creates a 200-foot-wide wildlife corridor over six lanes of interstate, making it one of the largest wildlife overpass structures in North America and serves as a high-visibility statement about the importance and success of wildlife mitigation. CDOT leveraged a small amount of state funding to secure $20 million in federal grant dollars to fund the construction of this vital crossing structure. Prior to the construction of the Greenland Wildlife Overpass, wildlife vehicle collisions accounted for 10% of delays on the corridor, an unusually high proportion for a highway corridor. Since the crossing opened, wildlife vehicle collisions have been reduced by 91%. The bill also leverages the success of CDOT Bridge and Tunnel Enterprise to build these key projects. A lesson learned in the past decades is that CDOT's narrowly dedicated enterprises have been extremely effective, both in targeting dollars to a specific and accountable purpose and in protecting those dollars against some of the swings of the budget cycle. Leveraging the enterprise to deliver on wildlife crossing infrastructure projects, which are engineered in a similar way to bridges in many respects, make sense from an efficiency standpoint. I do want to be clear, though, that this bill does not allow for intermingling of existing bridge and tunnel revenue sources with the new revenue generated by the bill. SB 26141 is a step in the right direction to support the safety of Coloradans on our roadways. CDOT respectfully urges your support and thanks sponsors for their leadership on this issue.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee for this opportunity to testify in support of SB 141. My name is Patrick Lane. I live in Evergreen, and I work for the Pew Charitable Trust, a nonpartisan, fact-based nonprofit. Today, the committee has the opportunity to advance legislation with no impact to the general fund that will make Coloradans safer by creating a reliable revenue source for a proven public safety investment. This bill will position Colorado to continue to leverage federal dollars and reduce long-term costs to drivers and to the state. As the bill's sponsors have noted, wildlife vehicle collisions are a uniquely costly, in Colorado running up a tab of over $321 million annually, which is the highest toll of any state in the West. Additionally, traffic jams and road closures caused by these collisions can cost Colorado millions more, especially on roads like I-70, where every hour of closure can cause economic impact of over $2 million, according to CDOT. Finally, a lack of connectivity for habitat harms our state's wildlife, which supports a $65 billion outdoor recreation economy. wildlife crossings are a proven solution that can nearly eliminate this problem in hot spots these systems have reduced collisions by 90 percent or more in priority areas and they often pay for themselves over time through reduced collision costs alone these projects are highly competitive for federal funding from any of the more than a dozen federal infrastructure programs under which they are eligible and colorado has been remarkably successful with these programs to date capturing about four federal dollars for every one state dollar invested. By offering the public a $5 opt-out fee, individuals can choose to invest in a solution that will protect drivers and wildlife. Coloradans can capture savings and federal funding for our state for less than 1.4 cents a day. And because of this, I respectfully urge you to advance SB141. Thank you.

Can you hear me now?

Fire away. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the members of the committee for the opportunity to speak in favor of Senate Bill 141 today. I wish I could be there to run this bill, to tell you the truth, but it's in great hands of Madam Speaker and Rep Taggart. As most of you know, I spent over 40 years of my life dealing with these exact same issues that we're discussing today with thousands of wildlife collisions in this state. It was mentioned earlier, you know, that so many of them go unnoticed. And I promise you, as a wildlife officer in this state, most aren't recorded as strikes. So there's far, far more than what is reported. But overpasses and underpasses drastically reduce the wildlife strikes in this state. And I have to say, you know, less carnage on our roads and making it safer for our motoring public. Everyone can get behind that. This builds an opt-in. You know, if you believe in it and you like it like I do, you can fund it. If you don't, you're not forced into it. But, you know, it also was mentioned that it leverages matching dollars, which is huge. And it helps out rural Colorado. I can always get behind something that makes our rural motoring public safer. And I've seen it and experienced it, that it does make it safer for our motoring public. It's been mentioned a little bit about, you know, the wildlife connectivity across the state and in different areas, that this is really critical and crucial to maintain our wildlife populations. And, you know, communities like ours and what I live in, wildlife strikes are a daily occurrence. So let's do what we can to help find solutions. I think this is obviously a great solution. And I have to say it turns out that break hard and hope isn't a real good transportation plan. So please vote yes on Senate Bill 141. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Tim Brass. I'm the Assistant Director for Parks, Wildlife, and Lands with the Department of Natural Resources. And I'm here today on behalf of DNR to support Senate Bill 141. I'm joined by CPW Statewide Wildlife Movement Coordinator, Michelle Cardin, to help answer any questions you may have. Since the bipartisan passage of Senate Bill 22-151, DNR and CDOT staff have been collaborating effectively to leverage state appropriated funds with federal funds and construct wildlife passages across the state. From the I-25 Greenland overpass to the U.S. 160 Wilson Gulch crossing, our efforts are paying off. Senate Bill 141 will help build on the momentum that's been generated over the past several years by directing dedicated funding for CPW to conserve critical wildlife corridors through the development of wildlife crossings and through the conservation of lands adjacent to crossing structures Animals such as elk and mule deer have seasonal migrations following traditional corridors And in Colorado these species move from higher elevations to lower elevations as winter approaches and snow accumulates Much of our valuable winter range is located in the valley floors, which is also where many of our roadways have been constructed. As Colorado's population grows, obstacles like high-volume roadways and other barriers that can impede wildlife movement can be a real threat to motorist safety. Voluntary financial contributions generated through Senate Bill 141 will help target crossing projects developed through the statewide wildlife transportation prioritization study, which has identified hundreds of miles within the top 5% of roadways that are really in need of mitigation. Additionally, this bill will help provide a needed fix to an administrative issue with the Keep Colorado Wild Pass, where a one-time opt-out of the pass would carry over into future years. This bill would fix this issue and allow residents the opportunity to choose if they would like to purchase the Keep Colorado Wild Pass each time they register their vehicle. It is for these reasons that the Department of Natural Resources asked for your support on Senate Bill 141 today. Thank you.

I'm going to be here to answer questions, so I don't have prepared remarks. Thank you, though.

Mr. Witt, if you could kick us off. Absolutely. Good afternoon, Chair Woodrow, Vice Chair Titone, and members of the committee. My name is Brendan Witt. I'm a policy advisor at Western Resource Advocates, an organization that has worked to ensure our communities thrive and balance with nature for more than 30 years. WRA supports Senate Bill 26-141 to ensure Colorado has sustainable and effective funding to prevent wildlife vehicle collisions, protect habitat connectivity, and continue leading the nation in this critical work. We are grateful to Speaker McCluskey and Representative Taggart for bringing this bill forward. As you've heard today, wildlife vehicle collisions cost Coloradans millions each year in increased insurance rates, in damages, in costs resulting from impacts to wildlife populations, and sadly in injuries, medical bills, or worse. Wildlife crossing infrastructure and habitat connectivity measures are cost-effective tools to reduce the risk of wildlife vehicle collisions by over 90%. Crossing structures and connectivity protection can reduce costs by reducing the needs for car repairs, reducing injuries, preventing costly highway closures, and protecting wildlife populations that contribute $7.6 billion annually to Colorado's economy. Colorado has been a national leader in building and implementing these impactful tools that benefit both Colorado drivers and wildlife, but more work is needed. Senate Bill 26-141 would create a meaningful, voluntary funding mechanism where Coloradans can choose to invest in reducing wildlife vehicle conflicts when registering a vehicle. By supporting Senate Bill 26141, the committee can advance in a central, sustainable stream of funding to help make Colorado's roads safer, protect Colorado's iconic wildlife, and ensure that local communities that rely on both throughout our state are able to thrive. This critical funding will further implement proven wildlife vehicle collision reduction efforts to help reduce the cost of these all collisions for Coloradans and preserve the millions of dollars in ecosystem benefits provided to Colorado local economies by healthy and thriving wildlife populations Thank you for your attention to this important issue today, and we are due to vote yes on Senate Bill 26-141.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Skylar McKinley. I'm here on behalf of AAA's 800,000 members in Colorado and 65 million members nationwide. At 125 years old, we are the original and largest part of the car lobby. Colorado drivers know exactly what this bill is about because Colorado is already the national leader in wildlife crossings. We've got over 100 structures. We have the data showing that they work where they're deployed. We have a bipartisan record of taking this seriously as a state, including the foundation this body laid with SB 22-151 four years ago. Look, we know how to do this. What we lack is a reliable, dedicated funding stream to keep building. This bill fixes that. Since 2010, as you've heard, vehicle wildlife collisions have killed 48 Coloradans and injured more than 5,000. Our members who walk away from those crashes still face repair costs that run into the tens of thousands. And that number climbs every year as vehicles get more sensor-laden and expensive to fix. Colorado drivers feel that in their premiums. I looked up, the last time I testified in this chamber four years ago, average wildlife collision repair costs in our data have doubled from around $5,000 to around $10,000, and that's just the vehicle. Cars have changed. Repair costs have changed. What we do to protect drivers and their vehicles also needs to change. This bill does that. The fee discussed here is optional. No driver is required to pay it, but drivers will recognize the instinct to pay it. From a AAA perspective, peace of mind on the road is the reason 65 million members joined AAA. We have grown every year for 125 years. We do two out of every three road service calls in America. All of that and most of our members will never use our services, not even once. They're still happy to pay the $79 per year to be a member. In much the same way, an optional $5 toward infrastructure that makes highways safer and that could increase insurance costs is a good idea. Most Coloradans won't think twice about it. Many will applaud the option. Some will opt out. I know that asking for an increase in registration fees sounds funny coming from the car lobby. In fact, if you look at our 120 years of serving Colorado, it's what we've always done. It's how we got fueling stations. It's how we got maps. It's how we got paved roadways. This is just an extension of that work. Colorado has a real chance to be the state that gets this right. We already have the model to prove it. Wildlife crossings save lives. They prevent crashes. A $5 fee for folks who elect to pay it can save Coloradans hundreds on insurance premiums that they'd otherwise have to pay. With that, I would urge a yes vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Kristen Stevens. I'm a Lerner County Commissioner, and I serve as the Transportation Chair for Counties and Commissioners Acting Together, CCAT. CCAT works to bring a united county voice to the Capitol in support of opportunity, equity, and sustainability for all Colorado communities. I'm here today in strong support of SB 26141 Wildlife Collision Prevention. First, I want to thank the bill's sponsors and stakeholders for bringing forward a thoughtful, data-driven approach to addressing wildlife vehicle collisions, an issue that impacts counties across Colorado in very real ways. In Larimer County, we see firsthand the risks and consequences wildlife collisions along key corridors like Highway 287 and other high traffic areas that intersect with critical migration routes. Like many counties, we are actively working on wildlife crossing and mitigation projects, but funding constraints continue to limit the pace and the scale of this work. And Larimer County is not alone. Across CCAP member counties, from mountain communities like Summit, Eagle, and Pickin, to rural and western slope counties, local governments are partnering with CDOT and Colorado Parks and Wildlife to advance wildlife crossing infrastructure that protects both residents and Colorado's iconic wildlife. These projects are essential, but they require sustained, reliable funding to be successful. SB 26141 provides exactly that.

Thank you. We'll go next to Commissioner Pinter. Nice to see you. Floor is yours for three.

Thank you. And next we'll go to Mary Rodriguez. Can you unmute yourself?

Thank you. Thank you. Committee any questions for this panel of witnesses?

Can you hear me?

Follow-up, Representative Brooks. All right.

Good afternoon. My name is Jessalyn Hampton, and I am the Director of Government Relations for Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance. Home to more than 2,500 animals representing 450 species, DZCA is a statewide, nonprofit wildlife conservation organization whose mission is to inspire communities to save wildlife for future generations. We strongly support Senate Bill 141 and would like to thank the bill's sponsors and advocates who work tirelessly to make this legislation a reality. Wildlife crossings have long been a conservation priority at DZCA because more than 7,000 animals are killed on Colorado roads annually, and wildlife crossings can reduce those deaths by 90%. For years, our Denver Zoo Field Conservation Team has provided wildlife monitoring via camera trapping on Eastvale Pass to provide scientific data in support of wildlife crossings. Eastvale Pass is considered a high-conflict area, which averages more than 22,000 vehicles per day and is important habitat for many species, including the threatened Canada lynx. Lynx can move over 2,000 miles annually in search of food, shelter, and mates, so intact landscapes are critical to this cat's survival. Highways and roads often cross migration paths that wildlife rely on, especially during the spring and fall. They can also disrupt movement of wildlife, limiting genetic exchange and isolating populations from each other. This is especially concerning for species whose numbers are decreasing, leading to less healthy populations. In conclusion, wildlife crossings are a proven tool to connect critical habitats for wildlife and reduce human-wildlife vehicle collisions. This legislation is a win for Coloradans and our wildlife.

Well, thank you. I was invited to answer any questions. And so I'm here to answer any questions if you have any.

Thank you You can hear me okay Yes Good afternoon I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today in favor of SB 26141 I'm Dr. Barbara Voskis, a resident of Jackson County for 21 years. After retiring from careers in biomedical research and engineering, I moved to North Park, where we have more elk and moose than people, with the intent to serve my new home state as a citizen scientist. I served on the BLM's Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council from 2011 to 2017, where I developed a deeper understanding of the importance of healthy landscapes and wildlife to our economy. I also served on the Transportation Commission for Northwest Colorado from 2019 to 2023. Championing wildlife crossings was one of my primary goals and saying yes to that role. These crossings both increase human safety on our highways and help resolve the biggest barriers to wildlife movement on our landscapes. These linear constructions we use to get around in our vehicles disrupt wildlife habitat in ways that no other human infrastructure does. The abundant wildlife in Colorado is important to all of us as wildlife contributes substantially to Colorado's tourism economy, CPW's budget, and give us a measure of how healthy our state is. I have my own personal story. In 2014, I was passenger of a vehicle involved in a wildlife collision as we pulled uphill out of a creek crossing at night in Jackson County. An oncoming vehicle hit an elk propelling her into the path of our car. Fortunately, the elk hit the front of the car triggering the airbags, unlike the unfortunate situation for Mary Rodriguez's parents. elk at 60 miles an hour car at 60 miles an hour we had some broken bones and airbag burns but survived the crash final tally one elk dead one car totaled colorado learned how effective these crossing structures are you've heard testimony today already about the colorado 9 study which has demonstrated over 90 reduction in wildlife crashes along that stretch While I was on the commission and since then, CDOT has installed several other wildlife crossings. Deciding on where to invest in them has been guided by a collaborative effort, as you've heard from others, between CPW and CDOT with scientifically based data to identify hotspots. and invest is the right word because they're expensive to build. With our current extremely tight budget and federal funding cuts, this bill provides a voluntary way for the public to help fund continued investment in wildlife crossings via the bridge and tunnel enterprise. I encourage this committee to approve HB 26141, and I truly hope it receives strong bipartisan support when it moves to the House floor. Please vote yes for safer highways for both humans and wildlife. And thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Gaspar Perricone, and I'm here today on behalf of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, as well as the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project, which is the state's largest alliance of hunting, angling and wildlife conservation organizations. and we are in strong support of SB 141. Colorado's wildlife conservation community has been at the forefront of wildlife crossing planning and construction nationally thanks to the work of CDOT, DNR, CPW, tribes, a good handful of NGOs, and frankly the collaborative coordination and planning efforts carried out by the Colorado Wildlife and Transportation Alliance. The legislature, of course, has also played a significant role in this success as they have established the Colorado Wildlife Safe Passage Fund in 2002. Unfortunately, the one-time general fund appropriation to the program has been depleted on a variety of projects, good projects I'll note, but is depleted nonetheless. It's also worth noting that the fund affords a state to leverage pretty significant federal funding opportunities to the tune of four to one. We've made great progress in alleviating wildlife vehicle collisions in the state, but there is still a long list of projects for which the funding is desperately needed. Probably goes without saying that reducing wildlife vehicle collisions not only provides public safety benefit, but also plays a very meaningful role in reducing wildlife deaths and subsequently results in a stronger herd health of big game populations across the state. In 2004, Colorado experienced approximately 7,500 wildlife collisions. At the same time, Colorado's big game herds are struggling in many parts of the state for a variety of reasons, but among those reasons are vehicle collisions. The funding split proposed in the Bill of 75 for infrastructure development and 25 for CPW's ongoing wildlife conservation mission are both critically important to sustain wildlife populations in Colorado and also play a meaningful role in supporting our hunting and wildlife-dependent economies all across the Western Slope and Eastern Plains, our outdoor recreation traditions, of course, and the promotion of safer travel throughout the state for residents, visitors, and wildlife alike. Thank you. Happy to stick around and answer any questions.

Bill Sponsors, come back up for the amendment phase.

No amendments, Mr. Chair.

Madam Speaker.

I paused and took a moment to look at our data again and just wanted to let you all know, since 2010, the three counties with the highest number of incidents are not led by La Plata County at 4,138 total crashes, certainly a rural part of our state, but Douglas County at number two with 3,573 crashes and El Paso County with 2,937. This is an issue that I think both of us coming from the western slope, it feels like more in our neighborhood, but this is a concern for the entire state. Very grateful to our witnesses today from CDOT, CPW, and certainly I want to share my own sadness with Ms. Rodriguez and obviously the tragedy that befell her family. Thank you all. Hope for your support of Senate Bill 141.

Closing comments from the committee.

Representative Marsh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I thought I could get there, but I don't want to be the one who's persnickety, but we're here in the Finance Committee, and the ends justify the means is kind of the saying that just keeps going over in my head. We keep saying it's an opt-in, but it's my understanding this is an opt-out. We had public testimony that they kept saying it was an opt-in, but it's an opt-out. We keep being told, you know, this is right within the enterprise stuff, but I'm looking here right in the declaration that this section in Collected is not a tax, but instead a fee imposed by the enterprise to defray the cost of completing wildlife self-passage projects that the enterprise provides as a service to the persons upon whom the fee is imposed. and then key line to me, and at rates reasonably calculated based on the benefits received by those persons. I don't see anything where that's true, and I see in the fiscal note making the obvious objective statement that there isn't a direct material benefit to the people doing it. So again, if this was a gifts, grants, and donations by opt-in, and I don't think that would cause any problems with sustainability. I don't think it's any different. But calling things something that they really not is very problematic to me when we do these things because when we get sloppy with wording and process no matter how great this program is and we heard that's all we heard is how great and important this program is. And that's great for the Transportation Committee, but I would hope the Finance Committee would take a little more view of what's this funding mechanism? Is this exactly what's going on? Or are we trying to put a round peg in a square hole? So for those reasons on the financing aspects, despite as important as the program is, because it's how it's structured and being presented, I'm going to have to be a no.

Representatives Brooks. Yes.

DeGraf. No for today.

Excused.

Marshall? No.

Zocay? Yes.

Come on up, Representative Johnson.

have my first time in finance. I love the even soft tone in this place, way different than other committees. Proud to present House Bill 26-1341. This is a modest pro-agricultural change to the Colorado Agricultural Development Authority, or CATA for easier reference, program. It's extending it by two months just to give our farmers and ranchers and our new farmers and ranchers more time to utilize this funding. We are seeing a ton of changes in agriculture at the federal level with tariffs and the lack of a farm bill, at the state level with the lack of water and extra fire that our market cycles, both in livestock and crops, are no longer set kind of time frames. They are very fluid based on what's happening everywhere. So we're just asking for two more months just so they can utilize this program better, not have to take out another loan or to miss out on these funds and happy to take any questions.

Mr is it Rubnai Rubnai You got to hit the little button right there Perfect There My name is Jim Rubing I the director of the Colorado Agricultural Development Authority We were created by the legislature to assist with the financing of Colorado farmers and ranchers. Our main program, we're passing on a brochure, is the Beginning Farmer Program. and this is the program. We've helped some 550 beginning farmers and ranchers around the state get started in agriculture. We've also done processing plants in rural parts of Colorado. The current law, as the way it's written, requires us to return the unused portion of our allocation of tax-exempt bonds on September 15th. Unfortunately, we get a lot of applications in August and in the fall, and we're not able to do anything with those applications until about March of the next year. And that requires the young farmer to either postpone closing or he has to get a bridge loan at a much higher rate. So we've worked very closely with the rural bankers in the state, and we've worked with the Department of Agriculture and DOLA to come up with an alternative that will work for everybody. and this is a fairly simple bill, we believe, changes the date from September 15th to November 15th. No allocation will ever be lost. If we have dollars that are not used at that time, they are transferred to CHFA. So nothing would be lost, but it allows us to help a lot more farmers and ranchers get their start in agriculture in the state. So we strongly request your support for this bill.

Please hold for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Madeline Robertson. I'm the Director of State Government Relations for Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. We represent family farmers and ranchers through our grassroots policy process. I'm testifying today on behalf of RMFU as well as Colorado Farm Bureau. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union and Colorado Farm Bureau support House Bill 26-1341. In essence, this bill provides a Colorado Agricultural Development Authority with an extended period to manage its bond allocation, allowing for more flexibility and successful utilization of these financial resources. With this change, young and beginning farmers who are utilizing the program will be able to use the program more effectively. With the current clawback date of September 15, many that are utilizing the program as a solution to conventional financing are forced to seek conventional bridge loans in the interim. Changing the date shortens the window with which program users would have to use bridge loans. This simple date changes small in wording, but significant in actuality as it will lessen the financial and administrative strain on young farmers and ranchers as they begin their journeys into agriculture. We urge your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 1341. My name is Jake Chamberlain, Senior Vice President of Frontier Bank in Lamar, Colorado. I'm a community bank ag lender serving producers here in southeast Colorado. Over the years, I've worked closely with the CADA program to help beginning farmers and ranchers achieve their goal of owning their first farmer ranch. The current structure of the CADA program presents a serious challenge. As it stands today, as you've heard, any funds not fully executed by September 15th must be returned to DOLA, creating a significant disconnect between how ag real estate transactions actually occur and how the program is administered. Land does not come on the market according to a post-calendar. Opportunities arise throughout the year and producers must act when land becomes available. The September 15th deadline does not reflect this reality. I'd like to share a recent example from my own experience. Last year, two young borrowers, completely unrelated transactions that I worked with, both beginning producers with limited resources, entered into contracts to purchase ag land. Both were fully approved by the bank and by CADA prior to the September 15th deadline. However, due to normal transaction timelines, neither deal could be closed before that date. As a result, both borrowers were forced to close using standard bank financing and higher interest rates as a temporary bridge. They then had to wait until the following year when CADA funding became available again to refinance into that program. This process required them to occur additional costs, including new fees, title insurance, and other closing expenses. It also introduced significant uncertainty as there was no guarantee that the CADA program would be funded the following year. These young producers were relying on the lower interest rates and reduced payments that CADA provides to make their operations financially feasible Without that assurance they were exposed to real financial risk as their ability to sustain these purchases depended on transitioning into the CATA program In effect the program designed to help beginning farmers ended up costing them more money and added uncertainty to their financial feasibility of the purchase, as well as unnecessary complexity and risk to their operations. Had CATA not gotten funded in 2026, their operation very well could have been financially unfeasible. Luckily, the funding did come. While extending the deadline to November 15th as proposing this bill is a meaningful improvement and a step in the right direction, I would respectfully suggest that even greater flexibility would serve Colorado's ag community. Ideally, once a loan is approved by both the bank and CADA, the associated funds should be allowed to be allocated and held throughout the end of the calendar year to allow for closing. This will align the program with the realities of ag transactions and ensure that approved borrowers can fully benefit from the program without unnecessary delays or additional costs. I strongly support this bill. Thank you for your time.

Representative Hartzell. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure whoever wants to chime in is fine. So we pushing it 60 days out Is this based on either a fiscal year a farming I mean what the requirements from a banking perspective versus a farming perspective Is this the best date or do we need to look at another date that more beneficial for the farmers

Yeah. This date is very helpful to us. I mean, we always want to have more time, but this was worked out with DOLA, who oversees the tax-exempt allocation.

All right, seeing none, thank you so much for your time this afternoon. Last call for witnesses on 1341. Seeing none the witness testimony phase is closed Bill sponsor come back up Got any amendments Committee any amendments Amendment phase is closed Wrap up Bill Sponsor Representative Johnson

Any closing comments from the committee? All right, seeing none, a proper motion routes 1341 to the Cal. Madam Vice Chair.

Representative Hartsook with a second. Please pull the committee. Representatives Brooks.

Camacho. Yes. DeGraff. Yes. Garcia. Yes. Gonzalez. Excused. Hartsock. Yes. Marshall. Yes. Stewart. Yes. Zocay. Yes. Tatone. Yes. Mr. Chair. Yes. That passes 10 to 0 with one excused. All right, committee, that concludes our business. We've got two bills up on Thursday. Pay attention to the calendar. Until then, finance stands adjourned. Thank you.