Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 093

Senators Amabile, Baisley, Ball, Benavidez, Bridges, Bright, Carson, Catlin, Cutter,

Danielson. Doherty. Exum. Frizzell. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. Wallace.

Henriksen. Judah. Kip. Kirkmeyer. Colker. Linstead. Linstead.

Liston. Marchman. Marchman.

Mullica. Pelton B. Pelton R. Rich. Roberts. Rodriguez. Simpson. Snyder. Sullivan, Wallace, Weissman, Zamora Wilson, Cutter.

Let's do this.

Senator Wallace. Wallace, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of the journal. Senator. Carson.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye.

Opposed, no. But the I still have it and that motion is adopted. Mr. Schaffler, please add Senators Lindstedt to the roll, Marchman to the roll, and Gonzalez to the roll. Senate Services.

Very good. Very good, Mrs. Schaffler. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is to proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege. All those in favor, say aye.

Opposed, no. What? The ayes have it, and that motion is adopted. Senator Catlin.

Granted.

Welcome to the Senate. Seeing no further moments of personal privilege. Third reading of bills. Consent calendar. Mr. Schaffler, please read the titles of all the bills on the consent calendar.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Very good. Mr. Majority Leader and Mr. Schaffler, any discussion on any of the bills? Seeing none of the motions to passage of all the bills and third-veter bills consent calendar, might there be any aye votes, no votes? Senator Pelton are.

Thank you. Senator Pelton-Arby, Court is a no vote on House Bill 1364, 1375, 1346, and 1396, and 1398. Senator Samara Wilson.

Thank you. Senator Zamora Wilson recorded as a no vote on 1348, 1349, 1350, 1364, 1366, 1367, 1377, 1382, 1384, 1387, 1391, 1393, 1394, 1396, 1398, and 1403 and 1407. Very good. Senator Rich.

Senator Riff should record as a no vote on House Bill 1355, 1364, 1384, and 1387. Senator Faisley.

Senator Baisley, we'll be recording a no vote on House Bills 1348, 1349, 1350, 1364, 1366, 1367, 1377, 1382, 1384, 1387, 1391, 1393, 1394, 1396, 1398, and 1403 and 1407.

Very good. Senator Liston.

Yes, only in the House.

Okay, all right, I'll let it slide this time, Mr. President.

Senator Lison will record as a no vote on House Bills 1348, 1354, 1364, 1371, 1384, 1387, and 1396. Senator Carson.

Mr. Thompson will be recorded as a no vote on House Bill 13-64 and 13-96. Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts recorded as a no vote on House Bill 13-87. Senator Henrickson.

Senator Hemmings will be recorded as a no vote on House Bill 1394. Further no votes? Cena, with a vote of 32 eyes, 3 no, 0 absence, 0 excuse, House Bill 1348 is passed. Co-sponsors. With a vote of?

With a vote of 33 eyes, 2 no, 0 abs, 0 excuse, House Bill 1349 is passed. Co-sponsors. With a vote of 33 eyes, 2 no, 0 abs, 0 excuse, House Bill 1350 is passed. Co-sponsors. With a vote of 35 eyes, 0 no, 0 abs, 0 excuse, House Bill 1352 is passed. Cosponsors, Senators, Colker, Marchman, with a vote of 34 eyes, 1 nose, 0 abs, 0 excuse, House Bill 1354 is passed. Cosponsors, with a vote of 34 eyes, 1 nose, 0 abs, 0 excuse, House Bill 1355 is passed. Co-sponsors. With a vote of 35-0-0-0 abs 게03 teve, House bill 1356, it's passed. Co-sponsors. With a vote of 35-0-0 abs 게03 teve, House bill 1358 is passed. Co-sponsors. With a vote of 35-0-0 abs 게03 teve, House bill 1361 is passed. Co-sponsors. With a vote of 35 ayes, 0 no, 0 absolute excuse, House Bill 1362 is passed. Co-sponsors. With a vote of 29 ayes, 0 no, 0 absolute excuse, House Bill 1364 is passed. Co-sponsors. Any additional no votes?

with a vote of 33 eyes to no zero absolute excuse House vote 1366 is passed co-sponsors senators Weissman with oops please that senator ball is a co as well on 66 With a vote of 33 ayes 2 no 0 0 absolutely excuse house number 13 67 is passed Co-sponsors.

Senators Wallace.

with algae drop-in the quantity of respect which was helpful At the cost accounts Madison of that we sell

Senator Wallace.

Oh, you got it. You ready? Let me know when you're ready.

And Senator Cutter.

With a vote of 35 I's 0, no, 0, absolute excuse, House Bill 1400 is passed. Cosponsors, Senators, Colker, Henriksen. With a vote of 35 I's 0, no, 0, absolute excuse, House Bill 1402 is passed. Cosponsors, Senator Henriksen. with a vote of 33 eyes, 2 nose, 0 absence, 0 excuse, House Bill 1403 is passed. Co-sponsors. With a vote of 35 eyes, 0 nose, 0 absence, 0 excuse, House Bill 1406 is passed. Co-sponsors. With a vote of 33 eyes, 2 nose, 0 absence, 0 excuse, House Bill 1407 is passed. Cosponsors. With a vote of 35 I, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. House bill 1408 is passed. Cosponsors. Senators. Weissman. Third reading of bills. Final passage. Mr. Schaffler. Please read the title of Senate bill 90. We just wait on the machine to catch up. Let's all take a brief moment of enjoyment of peace and relaxation.

Senator Carson.

Would you like an aye vote?

And I see another hand up, Senator Snyder.

Please tell us why you need a third reading amendment and later if you'd like you can explain the amendment. Or you can do both at the same time.

The motion is Senator Snyder's request to offer a third reading amendment. All those in favor say aye. Polls no. The ayes have it, and that motion is adopted. To the amendment, Senator Carson.

Would you all like to share the amendment so we can look at it while you're explaining it? And I'll call back on you, Senator Carson, to move the amendment here in a second. There is an amendment to the desk. Mr. Schaffler, please read L-006.

I move Amendment L-006.

Yeah, just a few comments on the amendment and the bill. I think it's important to recognize that the right to repair bill that was passed already has many exemptions. It's a recognition of things that just should be exempt. For example, all sorts of medical equipment is exempted. All sorts of electric vehicle charging stations, for example. You've got forestry and mining equipment. You've got portable generators, marine vessels, all sorts of safety equipment that you want to exempt from this. And so what we're talking about here is basically exempting, in addition, repair documentation, software related to national security issues, water treatment facility, control mechanisms, energy pipelines, power grid-related items, the financial sector, transportation, operations, and control. My colleague here from Manitou Springs, I think, explained the amendment very well. You know, the amendment really makes it clear. I think the most important thing in the amendment is it makes it clear that we're not talking about items that are typically sold retail to retail customers. We're talking about business to business, business to government. and the Attorney General is to consider that when evaluating requests for access to information. So I would urge and I vote for the amendment and the bill.

The motion is the adoption of L-006 to Senate Bill 90. Are there any, is there further discussion? Seeing none, are there any no votes on L-006 to Senate Bill 90? Senators, this is the L-006. will the vote of 35I090Abs or excuse L006 is adopted to the bill. Further discussion. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of Senate Bill 90. Are there any no votes? Senators, Marchman, Kip, Wallace, Cutter, Gonzalez, Judah, Henriksen, Weissman, Sullivan, Zamora Wilson, Rich, Bridges, Ball. With a vote of 22 eyes 13 no zero absence or excuse Senate Bill 90 is passed. Post sponsors. Mr. Majority Leader. Senator Mr. Minority Leader. Listen.

Mr. Schauffler, please use the title of House Bill 1351.

Senator Bridges.

Further discussion? There is further discussion. Senator Kirkmeyer.

Further discussion on 1351. Seeing no further discussion in the motion is the passage of House Bill 1351. Are there any no votes? Senators Zamora Wilson, Baisley. With a vote of 33 ayes, 2 no, 0, absolute excuse, House Bill 1351 is passed. Co-sponsors. Good. Mr. Minority Leader. Senators Frizzell. Good. Hilton B. Exum. Wallace. Mr. Schoffler, please read the title of House Bill 1353.

Senator Mavale.

Further discussion. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of House Bill 1353. Are there any no votes? What?

Pelton R. With a vote of 25 ayes, 10 no, 0 absents or excuse. House Bill 1353 is passed. co-sponsors senators Kip cutter Wallace Marchman Linstead Colker excellent mr. Schaffler please read the title of House Bill 1357 hospital 1357 by

Senator Bridges.

Further discussion? Seeing in the motion is the passage of House Bill 1357. Are there any no votes?

with a vote of 34 ayes, 1 noes, 0 absence, 0 excuse. House Bill 1357 is passed. Cosponsors, Senators Marchman, Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1359.

Senator Kirkmaier.

Further discussion? Seeing none of the motion is the passage of House Bill 1359. Are there any no votes?

I want to see how long you look at your hand. Oh, there we go.

With a vote of 28 ayes, 7 no, 0 absence or excuse. House Bill 1359 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators. Colker. Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1360.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the passage of House Bill 1360.

Peltan R. Roberts. Carson. We're on 1360. With a vote of 27 I's 8 no zero absence or excuse House Bill 1360 is passed. Co-sponsors. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1363.

Senator Amabile.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is to passage House Bill 1363. Are there any no votes?

Pelton B. Pelton R. Bright. Liston. Catlin. Carson. Baisley. With a vote of, oh please, with a vote of 24 ayes, 11 no, zero absolute excuse. House Bill 1363 is passed. co-sponsors. Senator Colker. Ball. Mr. Shofflin, please read the title of House Bill 1373.

Mr. President, I move House Bill 26, 1373 on third and final reading. Ask for an aye vote.

Senators, Baisley, Pelton, R.

House Bill 1374 by Representatives Soroto and Taggart and Senators Amabile and Bridges concerning kinship care funding provisions.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1375 on third reading and final passage.

House Bill 1380 by Representatives Brown and Taggart and Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer concerning the repeal of the Office of the Judicial Discipline Ombudsman.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1380 on third reading and final passage.

Senators, Gonzalez, Wallace, Benavidez, Judah, Weissman, Cutter, Sullivan.

House Bill 1385 by Representatives Brown and Sirota and Senators Amabile and Bridges, concerning directing 100% of the funding for the Public Defender and Prosecutor Behavioral Health Support Program for State Fiscal Year 2026-27 to the Office of the State Public Defender.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1385 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote.

Senator Zamora Wilson, Pelton B, Roberts, Pelton R, Liston, Baisley, Frizzell, Catlin.

House Bill 1397 by Representatives Sorota and Taggart and Senators of Abilene Bridges, concerning the use of general fund money to support benefits provided to certain public safety personnel through a multiple employer health trust and in connection therewith, reducing an appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1397.

House Bill 1399 by Representatives Brown and Taggart and Senators Zababalayan Kirkmire, concerning the elimination of the annual transfer from the general fund to the Multimodal Transportation and Mitigation Options Fund and in connection therewith reducing an appropriation.

Thank you Mr President I move House Bill 26 on third and final reading Ask for an aye vote Further discussion Seeing none of the motions of passage of House Bill 1399 Are there any No votes Senator Wallace Baisley with a vote of 33 ayes 2 no 0 absence or excuse House Bill 1399 is passed

House Bill 1401 by Representative Sirota and Taggart and Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer concerning transfers of money from the unclaimed property trust fund and in connection therewith transferring money from the unclaimed property trust fund to the housing development grant fund and the general fund in the state fiscal year 2025-2026, terminating future transfers from the and claim property trust fund to the housing development grant fund and the adult dental fund in making and reducing appropriations. Senator Bridges. Thank you, Mr. President. I move 1401 on

Mr. Minority Leader, Senators Rich, Frizzell, Zamora Wilson, Baisley, Liston, Pelton R, Catlin Carson Bright Pelton B with a vote of

House Bill 1404 by Representatives Sirota and Taggart and Senators of Mobily and Bridges concerning transferring money from the Tobacco Education programs fund to the preschool programs cash funding and connection there with making and reducing an appropriation. Senator Immobile. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1404

seeing in the motion as a passage of House Bill 1404. Are there any no votes? Senators Baisley, Zamora Wilson, Pelton B. With a vote of 32 ayes, 3 noes, 0 abs, 0 excuse, House Bill 1404 is passed. Both sponsors. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1405.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

There's further discussion.

Senator Bridges.

Very good. Senator Bridges will be fined $1 for referring to Senator Colcher as Chris. He wasn't paying any attention.

I know. It's not fair, but you still owe a dollar. The motion is passed.

The motion is passed to House Bill 1405. Are there any no votes? 1405. Yes.

With a vote of. 33 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absences, 0 excuses. House Bill 1405 is passed. Co-sponsors. Would Senator Kolker like to co-sponsor this bill? Okay, no. After all that. Mrs. Shoffler, please read the title of House Bill 1411.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Further discussion. Seeing none in the motion is passed of House Bill 14-11. Are there any no votes?

Will the vote over? 32 I, 3 no, 0 abs, 0 excuse, House Bill 1411 is passed. Co-sponsors. Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1412.

Senator Bridges.

Further discussion. Seeing none of the motion is the passage of House Bill 1412. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 35-I-0-0-0, absent, excuse House Bill 1412 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators, Henrickson. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1413.

Senator Amabile.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the passage of House Bill 1413. Are there any no votes?

with a vote of 34 ayes, 1 noes, 0 abs, 0 excuse. House Bill 1413 is passed. No sponsors. Senators, Henriksen, Weissman, Cutter, Wallace, Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1409.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Further discussion. Seeing none, the motion is passed with House Bill 1409. Are there any no votes?

Snyder with a vote of 30 eyes 5 no 0 absence or excuse House Bill 1409 is passed. No sponsors. Mr. Schoffler please read the title of House Bill 1378. House Bill 1378 by

House Bill 26-1378 on third and final reading. Ask for an aye vote. Further discussion. Seeing none

House Bill 1410 by Representative Sirota and Senators Bridges. Concerning the provision for payment of the expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state of Colorado

Thank you, Mr. President, for what I expect will be my last time at the well presenting a budget to you all. Likely. Likely. I don't know that they'll have the chance. Hoping not. This is not a budget I love. This budget has cuts that have kept me up at night. the process of putting this together I think Senator Kirkmeyer mentioned this yesterday at some point along the way I think just about every member of the budget committee shed tears as we were making these votes and making the decisions that we had to make in order to get the budget to balance as required by the Colorado Constitution and the budget is a moral document. It puts in black and white, dollars and cents, exactly what we value and how much we value it, and more than any other year, those values were in competition. And I want to say thank you to Hillary Jorgensen and just, I think, to share with all of you again the comments that she made yesterday. She is one of the folks in charge of the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition, has traditionally fought very hard for increases in exactly the programs this year that we had to make cuts to. And she recognized that we are not in a program expansion mode. We are in a harm reduction mode. We are doing the best that we can with the constraints that we have to do the least harm to the people of Colorado. This was a year defined by constraint. But the way that we did this, the way that we came together, the way that the budget committee process works, I think this is something that Coloradans should be very proud of. I want to thank first the Office of State Planning and Budgeting, OSPB. The work done by those folks to present to us a budget in November was certainly their first step, but it was not their last. Over my four years at the Budget Committee, we have seen an ever-increasing partnership, really, between the folks that work for us on the JBC and the folks who work for the executive branch over here. And I want to say thank you very much to all the folks at OSPB, except Speaker Ferrandino. Just kidding. I think I'd say especially Speaker Ferrandino. His leadership over there is part of why we are able to work so closely together. And if we weren't able to do that, if we didn't have that partnership, making these cuts would be much more difficult. I think the cuts would be much worse. They would be less informed. That partnership is critical, and I hope that it continues. OLLS, I think we kept our drafters up many, many nights. They did incredible work getting this bill together, getting all of the bills. I mean, you have sat through it all this morning. This is I believe it a historic number of bills So to all our folks at LLS thank you Which means I would be remiss if I didn thank the print shop who worked I think over the Easter holiday weekend to make sure that you all had the materials that you need to dig in, make your decisions, and know what it is that you're all voting on here today. Taylor and Carl, our staff on the partisan side who do incredible work over there, keeping folks updated. Really, I think if any of you in this chamber have questions about what we're doing over there, I strongly encourage you always to talk to our folks. They are fair. They are extremely on the ball, and I think they know more than I do even immediately after we have voted on things. I'm a goldfish, and there's so much coming at us. The work that they do is truly incredible to keep folks updated on the work we're doing. And most importantly, I say this all the time, and I mean it from the bottom of my heart, we have some of the best people working in state government working for us across the street on the budget committee. I know it is rare that we applaud on third reading, but these folks, if anyone in state government deserves a hand right now, it's our JBC staff over here. Thank you all so much. I think this year in particular, we did some very mean things to you. As far as timing goes, I know that when we ask you for cuts, it is just as hard on you all to propose some of these really heart-wrenching proposals as it is on us to vote for them. And so thank you for having the courage to always offer those up for the hours, the many, many hours you put in, the sleepless nights. I know at least some of you slept here at the Budget Committee during the final hours of this. The work that you do is incredible. The state is better for it. Thank you for your service. And my colleagues, Senator Mabley, the moral clarity that you bring, the personal impact of the cuts that we have had to make this year, you always remind us of the human beings that are behind the decisions that we make. Your moral clarity is critical as we move through the personal relationships and impact. It means that we make different decisions than we would otherwise make because you were there. Thank you. And Senator Kirkmeyer. You know, I say that there's no six people that I would rather have served on the budget committee with than the folks on the budget committee, given the legal constraints on the selection process for those members. you are direct you are tough you know more about state government than I think probably anyone else serving in the legislature probably more than just about anyone else in this building we don't always agree but even when we disagree we disagree in good faith and your time energy effort commitment to this budget even given the enormous challenges that being in the position you're in right now bring i from the bottom of my heart thank you it is incredible the work that you have done and you truly put service to the state and the people of colorado above all else and it shows Thank you And colleagues thank you for the impact and changes you made on this budget We're going to go talk about them with folks from the House, and we'll see where that goes. So thank you all so much. Ask for an aye vote on House Bill 1410.

Thank you, Mr. President. So there's not a whole lot left to say. I do just want to, people keep telling us, oh, thank you, you worked so hard, this was so hard. And it was hard. But I asked to have this job. And I am absolutely humbled that you all entrusted me with these really hard decisions. and I want you to know that I take that very seriously. I told a couple of good jokes at the Joint Budget Committee. I sometimes even made the staff laugh. But at the end of the day, I'm a dead serious person, and everything we did I took to heart, and we all worked together. I mean, the idea that the six of us, I mean, all of us come from very, very different places, both in our political life and in our personal lives. And there were lots of days when we didn't agree with each other, where we didn't agree with the staff, where we didn't agree with the departments, where we were incredibly frustrated by the choices put to us. and that piece of working together, I will say, even without the legal constraints, there really aren't six people who I think could have done better than we did in terms of figuring this out, in terms of working together, and in terms of honoring each other and honoring each other's positions on different things, whether we agreed with it or disagreed with it. And one thing that I think all of us know and knew the whole time for this last six months is that at the end of the day, this is the only bill that has to pass, this and the education funding, the only two bills that has to pass. And we have to balance the budget. That's our constitutional obligation. And so that's what we're doing here today. And I appreciate all the vigor you all put into the amendment process yesterday and all the digging in that you did and all the people out there in the lobby who really care about what we did and what we didn't do and how we did it. And I will say that everyone worked incredibly hard. But nobody worked as hard as the staff. And so I just have to echo the comments from Mr. Vice Chair, that this also is an incredible honor to be able to work hand in hand with some of the smartest people in the building and some of the hardest working people in the building. And so thank you. It really has meant a lot. And thank you to all of my colleagues. I would have rather been there being a part of the decision-making than having those decisions made by us.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to start off with the thank yous. Thank you to the JBC staff. They put in a yeoman amount of work, and they put up with all of us. Of course, we put up with them. But there's a lot, and they did work over the Easter weekend. and they did work probably close to Thanksgiving and over Christmas and put in a lot of time. We start this process all the way back in November, but it truly does go year-round for us, but it's full-time after November. So I appreciate everything, the sweat and the tears that they put in to this budget as well and that they do every year. And, man, they have to go back and answer all of our questions, and sometimes they look at us and they're not sure what the question actually meant, but they go find an answer anyways. So I appreciate all of you. I appreciate the Office of State Planning and Budget and their staff as well. They put in a lot of time and a lot of effort, and it's the same thing. We have a lot of questions for them. I know we all meet with the director of OSPB, Director Ferrandino, on a regular basis during the budget process as well, and that's appreciated. We get to get some insight into what's going on in the executive branch and what their thoughts are. And I would also like to thank, you know, we thank the lobbyists, we thank the legislators, but this year in particular, I would say on any given day, we probably got e-mails from hundreds, hundreds of people in the public who were paying attention, hundreds. I can still remember the call I had on the Wednesday night before Thanksgiving. I thought there was going to be six to eight parents. There were over 80 parents on a Zoom call advocating for their children in this budget. That is who I really want to thank for being engaged, for giving us that information, those people who have to live by and deal with a lot of the decisions that are made within this budget, especially with regard to funding. So thank you to all of those people as well. We had some discussion about this yesterday a little bit, and I'm just going to say it again. The budget is not just shaped by six members on the Joint Budget Committee. Yes, we have to sit there and do the work of putting it together and bringing it across the street. But the budget is shaped actually by 100 people. And it is our legislative constitutional duty and mandate to write the budget. But it is 100 people. And it's not just the week that the House spends on the budget or the week that the Senate spends on the budget. it's the bills that you pass or the bills that you would have passed or that you did pass that shaped this budget. If you didn't notice it, when we were going through with the legislation and the provisions that we, the bills that we had to bring forward that were joint budget committee bills, yeah, we were making a lot of cuts and those were cuts to programs. And they were in bills that were sponsored by a lot of us, a lot of you. bills that were sponsored by people you know six seven years ago or longer that we were making changes to So the budget is not just shaped by six people on the Joint Budget Committee It shaped by every legislator in this building And yes, we all do come from different backgrounds, different experiences, and we have different beliefs. And that's okay. It's what makes us better. It's what makes us push us to be better. The budget protects what matters most, this budget. in my mind protects what matters most. We continued historic funding for education. We didn't cut K-12 education. We didn't go back to a budget stabilization factor. We protected historic funding for education. We protected access to health care for everyone, not just those that are the poorest of poor and the medically fragile, but for everyone in the state of Colorado. And we've preserved critical investments in public safety. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure it's probably the same. Those are the issues that our constituents, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, unaffiliated, independents, are not even registered. Those are the issues, the core priorities that our constituents believe that we should be funding. Those are basic responsibilities of government, and I believe they should always come first. A budget is a planning document. It outlines what we intend to allocate and spend taxpayer money on. These are not our revenues. We are not a business that provides goods and we collect money from. We get money from our constituents. the taxpayers in the state of Colorado. So it's how we are going to spend our money in the future. It serves as a guide for managing resources and effectively ensuring that our financial decisions align with our goals and priorities and the wants and needs and desires of our constituents. A budget, though, is more than just numbers on a page. It is a moral document. And it reflects everyone's values and priorities. It shows what we truly care about by revealing where we choose to invest those resources and who we are committed to supporting with them. It is time, though, that we take seriously the change that we all, and when I say we, I'm talking about all of us. all 100 legislators. It's time that we look at what's going on in this budget. For too long, the structural budget deficit has been ignored. We didn't take it as seriously as we, and I keep saying we, because I'm talking about all of us. We did not take it as seriously as we should have, starting all the way back in March of 2021, when we knew that we were in a structural deficit, that we were doing way too much one-time spending on ongoing general fund operating costs. We cannot continue to balance the budget. I know we have to glide into this. I know we can't make all these cuts all at once. Believe me, I know. I'm in the minority. But we cannot continue to balance this budget with one money and paying for ongoing expenses time and time again That truly is the definition of insanity and we have to change our ways We need to require upon each of us, and it's upon everybody in here. It's not just the six members on the Joint Budget Committee. Everyone in here needs to remember that we are prioritizing core services that families count on. And we need to have that reminder from all of us to each of us that government works best when it focuses on the basics, lives within its means, and put the people of Colorado ahead of politics. This budget does not fix everything, but it is a start. And lastly, I do want to thank my colleagues that I served with on the Joint Budget Committee. And please, I know the good senator from Greenwood Village doesn't think he's going to be back here next year, but if he is, I do hope that you intend to vote him back on to the Joint Budget Committee. because who else will I have to supply cashews and other food, beef jerky and other things and cookies to to make sure that he shows up and that I have someone to argue and debate with about, especially Tabor, which I'm sure that is going to go on. But I would just say, firstly, with the good senator from Greenwood Village, I appreciate you. over the course of the last six years, serving with you both on the education committee, where we sit next to each other, and now on the joint budget committee, where we sit next to each other. We have truly gotten to know each other. We have built a foundation of trust, which is extremely important, especially in this business, especially in our roles. And we have built that foundation of trust. We don't always agree. but I do know that when you give me your word, your word is solid. I have enjoyed watching you have a family. It has changed you. It has changed you a lot in many good ways. But you have been staunchly strong when it comes to the budget, defending your caucus's position, defending your own position, but truly looking out for the people of the state of Colorado. And for that, I am grateful. And to the good senator from Boulder, you have told more than just a few jokes at the Joint Budget Committee. I truly, truly enjoy working with you. I've only known you for a couple of years here, but when we work on the Joint Budget Committee, it's pretty close quarters. Our offices are all right next to each other. We can hear each other down the hallway. They're not that far apart. So we get to know each other pretty well. I know what your priorities are. I know you believe in them strongly. You fight for them so hard. It's incredible to watch you when you are bringing up those priorities. And for those of you who don't know, it's behavioral health services. and the good senator from Boulder will not let us rest until she has made sure that we all have an understanding of the importance of this not just to her family but to many families throughout this state The importance of behavioral health services and how we deliver those services in this state It was extremely touching to me when you brought that group down that you're a member of, and they were here on our Senate floor, and you talked about them, and you talked about why you were part of that group. and that is at the core of you and it's extremely important that you keep bringing that to the Joint Budget Committee. You're truly a remarkable person and I truly enjoy working with you. So with that, we still have a lot of work to do. Like I said, this budget is a start. It doesn't fix everything. We still have a lot of work to do. I appreciate the work that we did yesterday. I appreciate the comments that every single one of you have. this week is truly your turn to put your fingerprints on the budget for the state of Colorado, and it's your responsibility. We do have a mandate to pass a constitutional mandate to pass a balanced budget, and I will be adhering to that constitutional mandate and upholding my oath and voting for this budget, and I ask the same of all of you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to say a couple of words very quickly. I want to also thank the Joint Budget Committee for their incredibly hard work on this budget. I can't imagine, I feel like you must feel like you live in a fishbowl, because I know that I'm always looking at you to see, you know, how's it going, and feeling you out. I think your work is incredibly important and unbelievably difficult, especially this year. I just wanted to say a couple of words about the two amendments that you all passed that I brought yesterday. The IDD community is true grassroots advocacy. They are very vocal. You probably have seen many emails from them, but they are. They're not part of huge organizations with lobbyists. They really, that's not their space, but they are very passionate about what is important to them, and that is their kids. these are individuals who live lives that literally none of us can imagine these are parents who bear burdens and responsibilities that are beyond comprehension they're people whose biggest fear is dying before their disabled child so I wanted to get up here and explain my vote because I am going to be a yes for today on the long bill on House Bill 1410 because I'm going to put my vote where my voice has been I ask that those amendments and the work that was done yesterday stick with the bill. And I know it's a long shot, but I'm making that up. ask. And I reserve the right to change my vote if that doesn't happen. Thank you very much.

and an honor to do this work over the last four years, again with some of the best folks who work in state government. This is a budget done right. This is legislating done right. Washington, D.C. should take notes from this building. This is how government should work. I renew my motion for 1410.

Amabile.

Snyder.

Lindstedt.

Thank you, Mr. President. Having voted on the prevailing side, I move for the reconsideration of House Bill 1399.

The polls no. No.

Mr. Schauffler, please hear the title of House Bill 1399. House Bill 1399 by Representatives Brown and Taggart and Senators Amabile and Kirkmeyer concerning the elimination of the annual transfer from the general fund to the multimodal transportation and mitigation options funding in connection therewith reducing and appropriation.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the repassage of House Bill 1399. We're holding for a second. It's above 1413. Comes right after 1397. The motion is the passage of House Bill 1399. Are there any no votes? Any no votes on 1399? On 1399? Are there any no votes on 1399? 1399. Any no votes? Oh, you're a yes. Never mind. I just make it show. With a vote of 35 eyes or no, zero absences or excuse, House Bill 1399 is repass. Co-sponsors. Would you like to co-sponsor Senator Basley? It's all good. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is reconsideration of House Bill 1413. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

But the ayes have it that motion is adopted and reconsideration is granted. Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1413.

Are there any no votes? Wow, what's going on here? With a vote of 35 I, 0, no, 0, absentee or excuse, House Bill 1413 is repassed. Co-sponsor, Senator Samara Wilson. No? It's all good. Robert. You want me to pitch her? All right. I'm sorry. I'm here to do business. I'm here to do business. One more. One more, Jeff. Oh, there's one more. Jeff, you've got to go back to work. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is for the reconsideration of House Bill 1360. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no?

Wow. The ayes have it, and that motion is adopted and reconsideration is granted.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of House Bill 1360 on third and final reading again and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of general order's second reading of bill's consent calendar.

Opposed, no.

Senator Wallace will take the chair. The committee will come to order. The coat rule is relaxed.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the passage of the two bills on General Order's second reading of bill's consent calendar and the accompanying committee reports, which is House Bill 1262 in the Health and Human Services report and Senate Bill 145 in the Education report.

Aye. Opposed, no.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report.

Aye. Opposed, no.

Will the clerk please read the report? April 16, 2026, Mr. President, the Committee of the Whole Begs Leave to Report is had under consideration the following attached bills being the second reading thereof and makes the following recommendations thereon. Senate Bill 145, as amended, passed in second reading, in order to engrossed and placed in the calendar for third reading and final passage. House Bill 1262, amended, as passed on second reading, in order to revise and placed in the calendar for third reading and final passage.

The motion is the adoption of the Committee of the Whole Report. Are there any no votes? with a vote of 35 ayes, 0 no, 0, absolute excuse. Committee of the Whole report is adopted. Senate Bill 145 is amended to pass second reading in order of gross place, count of third reading and final passage. House Bill 1262 is amended to pass second reading in order of gross place, count of third reading and final passage. General orders, second reading of bills.

You move on to the motion. All those in favor, say aye.

Opposed no. The ayes have it. And that's a weird motion, but the motion, it's a weird vote. The motion is adopted. The Senate resolves some committee to hold for consideration of the general or second bills. Cut. Not consent. Just second bills. And Senator Wallace will take the chair. You vote twice.

House Bill 1084 by Representative Espinosa and Camacho and Senators Weissman and Linstead, concerning voter transparency requirements to expand information about the funding of initiated statewide ballot measures and in connection therewith requiring the ballot title and abstract of the fiscal impact statement for certain initiated statewide ballot measures to identify the main areas of state expenditure that would be affected by the measure.

Is there further discussion? Senator Linstead.

is to give voters the same information that legislators have when we're making decisions about spending priorities. I think when voters send us what is essentially an unfunded mandate to expand or expand public funds on services, it is important for them to know where that money could come from. And the intent of this bill is to give voters the same information that we have when we're making spending priority decisions on where dollars come from because everything has trade with all of them the voters During our election work we use the majority government policy trade and it is important that that voters have that that information when they making those decisions I will say that this bill in its current form will have an amendment coming up that will change it to be a little bit dialed back in an effort to get it passed we've been working really hard to get something that can pass this General Assembly and be signed into law so that we can continue to protect critical public services and ensure that our electorate, who I trust immensely, has the information they need when making spending decisions at the ballot box.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Just to add a little bit and then we'll start charting our new course. You know, Article 5 of our Constitution is the legislative power. And in the first instance, the 100 of us with the privilege to be in here are vested by the Constitution with that power. But as amended in the early 20th century, the Constitution also puts a very strong quantum of the legislative power in the people through the initiative process. We are over 400 titles submitted to review and comment on all manner of issues by all manner of proponents because we have one of the most robust initiative mechanisms of any state in the country. We actually didn't really, you know, coordinate our remarks, but I was thinking a lot of the same things that the senator from Broomfield just spoke to. So when we are here engaging in fiscal decisions, we have the benefit of the nonpartisan staff, for example, from the Joint Budget Committee that we just very rightly bragged on, also nonpartisan staff from LCS, from LLS, maybe from the auditor's office, as well to help us make the decisions that we're here to make. the intent of 1084 and the intent of prior legislation that this builds on was to, we can't fully put 6 million folks, 4 plus million voters in our state in the same position, but to make a little bit more information a little bit more accessible. There was a measure years ago that added some language to ballot titles for tax measures so that people could have that information accessible, not have to dig into the blue book or do their own research on the internet. Again, vote however you want, but the point is it's right there in the ballot title, but that was only for tax measures. There are other measures that can be very fiscally impactful short of going into the tax code. What 1084, as it comes before the Senate right now, seeks to do was provide comparable treatment for non-tax measures with a fiscal impact in the title with de minimis exceptions. However, as we all know, the process of a bill becoming a law involves bicameralism and presentment, and what has been made manifest to us is that should 1084 in its current version be presented to the executive, it would be met with a veto. So this is the part where you got your own bill to get something done, so I have an amendment.

Amendment L5, men re-engrossed bill.

Oh, is there any discussion to the amendment? Senator Weissman.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Amendment No. 5.

Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Further discussion on the bill? Senator Zamora Wilson.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1084. All those in favor please say aye Aye Opposed no No The ayes have it and the bill is adopted Will the clerk please read the title to House Bill 1202

Senator Amabile.

Further discussion? Senator Marchman.

Further discussion? Senator Zamora Wilson.

Senator Frizzell.

There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read amendment number 10?

Senator Frizzell.

Further discussion, Senator Amable? Are you, did you want to speak? Okay.

Further discussion on Amendment L10? Senator Rich.

Further discussion on Amendment L10? Seeing none, the motion is for the adoption of Amendment L10.

Aye.

No. The no's have it and the amendment is lost. to the bill. Senator Frizzell.

fees. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read amendment number 11?

amendment L11 to House Bill 1202. Further discussion? Senator Fezell.

and we put these words into a red book that say a county may designate a portion of the money collected from the documentary fee, all you have to do is go in one time, one year, maybe next year, maybe two years from now, and strike that may to shall, and all of a sudden it is no longer permissive. It is no longer permissive at all. And so this amendment, L11, simply prohibits the use of documentary filing fees for multi-jurisdictional authorities unless approved by a majority of the voters within the county. So this amendment ensures voter accountability for new funding mechanisms. The bill allows the county to redirect the documentary fee revenue towards housing and homelessness initiatives without requiring... The bill currently allows counties to redirect documentary filing fee revenue toward housing and homelessness initiatives without requiring direct voter approval. and this amendment simply says, nope, it's up to the voters, and they make the decision how that documentary fee is distributed. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just urge a no vote on L11. This is the portion of the bill that CML and CCI are incredibly supportive of. What I have heard from my community in Loveland is that homelessness is not something that they're able to solve at a local level. This is exactly what they're asking for, is more of a regional look at things. And so adding this step that L11 would require kind of goes against the local control message of what we're after. So again, I would urge a no vote on L11.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of L11. I think it strikes right to the heart of local control and asking if indeed we're going to divert part of these filing costs to support actions of the authority. I think even the creation of the authority is going to require a vote of the people. I think this follows right in suit and in line and says if you're going to create the authority and then you want to shift part of the funding in the filing fees to help support the authority I think it makes perfect sense to go to the voters and ask for permission to do that I think L is a reasonable approach to make this bill incrementally a little bit better Ask for your support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also would like to speak in favor of the Amendment 11 by the Senator from Castle Rock. You know, I think this just reflects the belief that a lot of us have that the way to deal with homelessness effectively is at the local level. I see plan after plan, whether it's at the federal level, and I'm going to talk about that in a little bit when I offer an amendment. But the federal government has had substantial plans to end chronic homelessness, as they called it. And in my opinion, they were not terribly effective. The state government continually wants to dive into this. You know, a lot of these plans that get developed seem to me to be good at just about one thing, and that is counting the number of homeless people. and it never seems to get to the root issues and the root causes that need to be addressed. I think there's a lot of different approaches to homelessness, and I'll talk about some of those that I've worked on when I was the regional director at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development a few years back. But I don't think having more plans, whether at the federal or the state level, is going to do much of anything. In fact, you know, if you look at the past history of all of these, at the end of the day, we always seem to have more homeless people. And so we're not doing something right. We need to start taking a different approach and look at the models that work. There are models that work out there. But unfortunately, I think a lot of the so-called experts in this field don't like those models that work for a number of reasons, which, again, I will talk about in a bit here. For this time, I would like to support Amendment 11 here because I do think we need to focus on the localities and get the voters and citizens in the localities engaged on this issue instead of always saying, And while a state or some other higher level of government is going to address this problem.

Aye.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think there's any question that we all want to do what we can to help end homelessness. But I think, you know, there's basically two broad approaches to this issue. You know, there's the housing first model, I think is generally called. You know, housing is a basic human right, it's said. Let's provide it. Let's just provide housing to people. And when we do that, we're not necessarily going to require sobriety or employment. We just going to support folks and provide the housing I think the other major model is in my opinion the one that works much better which is to say you've got to get the treatment first, you've got to agree to work, you've got to agree to engage in sobriety programs and self-sufficiency, and the housing has to be linked to that. Now, I think I mentioned before, early in my career, I was fortunate to work in Washington, D.C. on Capitol Hill for members of the Senate and the House, and I worked there over a decade or so. So, and, you know, I decided along with my wife that we wanted to move back to Colorado, and we were very fortunate in 2001 when George W. Bush was elected that I was able to be appointed to be the, what's called the regional director at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. So each federal agency has a director or administrator. So in that position, I was based here in Denver and oversaw a six-state region. And a lot of what we worked on then was these 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness. And it all sounded very good, and I think people were obviously sincere in wanting to put these plans together They're at the federal level, really, under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, as it's called. And they devoted tremendous, tremendous resources to ending chronic homelessness. And each state, Denver was a part of it. Denver had the biggest plan, obviously, in the region where I worked to end chronic homelessness. But one of the things I found very interesting when I got into the job, I knew a little about a group called Step 13 here in Denver. It's now called Step Denver. And I said to the federal folks, you know, in the administration, well, here in Denver, you know, if we want to be looking at different options for ending homelessness, we ought to go and visit Step 13, talk to those folks. Because my understanding is they're pretty successful at ending homelessness. And I was very quickly told that we either do not want to work with Step 13 or we cannot work with Step 13. I said, well, why is that? I mean, that's what they're all about. And some of the things I was told were, well, number one, they make people take, they drug test everybody. In order to participate in the program, you have to be drug tested and alcohol tested regularly to determine if you are maintaining your sobriety. Another thing we don't like is the people in the program have to work. Much of what they do at Step 13 involves things like repairing automobiles, working on various projects. some of them at the facility some of them outside in the neighborhood But the basic idea is if you are not there to work you not going to get the housing And they're very strict. If you don't pass the sobriety test, you're out. Now, I have heard, you know, on some occasions they will give people a second chance, and that's up to them. But the point is, you know, these governmental agencies don't particularly care for programs that make it clear that you've got to work, you've got to be focusing on turning your life around, focusing on your addictions. and if you talk to people that have been homeless and had these issues, the successful ones seem to agree with this, is that you've got to be willing to make change. And until you're willing to do that, you're not going to be terribly successful. So I think there are clearly different categories of homeless individuals. Clearly mental illness is a big part of the issue. And in that category, I think we have to do whatever we can to make sure that those individuals get the treatment that they need, they get the medication that they need, and that they're regularly incentivized and make sure that the medications and the other treatments are administered and taken. And we did have some discussions on this issue recently in the Judiciary Committee where we talked about this whole issue of people who are mentally ill and sometimes, you know...

Well, this is a grand plan to end homelessness and plan around homelessness in Colorado. So I think it's a pretty wide-ranging topic. Madam Chair, I mean, I think we're a lot of different aspects to this that I wanted to touch on, if I may, because I think we need to focus on how we're going to end homelessness, not how we're just going to keep doing more studies and planning. And so with the mental illness issue, we talked about the fact that a lot of people seem to have this view, well, you can't require people to be in facilities and so forth, and that's not really true. I know the senator from Boulder is very active in this issue, and she actually spoke at the hearing we had on one piece of legislation about this issue that we need to be more assertive for the folks who are mentally ill and require help and make sure they get the help and not just have this attitude of, well, we can't make anybody do anything. I think a lot of times that's just a cop-out. I think the other big area is clearly alcohol addiction, drug addiction, and that really is the area I think where Step 13, Step Denver is. really shows what works is, you know, their approach is you want to come into the facility, we're going to help you. In fact, their motto is the program is a peer-to-peer residential treatment program focusing on sobriety, work, and accountability. And they have tremendous success. and the folks who participate successfully in that program, in many, many cases they go on to very successful lives in employment. They come back and they talk about, I know every year on one of the radio stations I listen to they have a fundraiser. They bring back all of the folks who participated successfully in that program, and that's what they talk about. They say, well, I wasn't going to turn my life around until I had a program that's, you know, really encouraged and required that accountability, personal accountability. I think, obviously, there's another category of the homeless, which I think are the ones we do really have to probably focus on the housing first, and that's women who have children. And oftentimes, you know, young women have been, you know, abandoned or mistreated, and they may have children. And you can only feel the need that that is an area where government has to help people. I mean, you can only imagine a woman trying to provide for children in that situation, not having the income or the means to do it. And one of the programs I think, you know, I am very supportive of Catholic charities. I know in our area, in El Paso and Douglas County, we're in the archdiocese there in the southern part of the state. And I think Catholic charities has an amazing program, particularly focusing on those families and those children that need help.

Well, again, Madam Chair, I'll try and focus a little bit more, but we are talking about homelessness here and how to end it. Thank you.

Back to the bill, Senator Carson.

There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read amendment number 7?

Senator Carson. I move amendment L7. So what this amendment does is very simple. It just keeps most of the bill but it removes the portion of the bill that focuses on this statewide study and planning And a lot of that going to be administered by the Department of Local Affairs and different you know programs in the state government And as the good senator from Castle Rock said, once again, it's always interesting when you get a fiscal note on something like this, where we're going to have a grand study of how to reduce and prevent homelessness. That is the title of the House Bill 26-1202, Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Homelessness. And yet what we see here is no impact at all on the expenditures of the state. And that, of course, is interesting, but it does lead you to wonder how much energy is really going to put into another statewide study. And so I offer that amendment in the hopes that we can get the bill more focused on the localities and more focused ultimately on figuring out what programs with housing and homelessness and work and sobriety, which one of those actually work. because I think the plans that work, the programs that work, as I mentioned earlier, and I'll just briefly say it again, I think the programs that work are the ones that require the sobriety and the employment and, you know, basically say, we're going to work with you peer-to-peer to turn your life around. I don't think it does much good to just keep doing the same thing we've been doing year after year. And I'll just mention in closing on my comments on this amendment, if you look at the Denver point in time count and the programs they put into effect in Denver, In 2017, there were 3,100 homeless individuals counted. In 2024, there were 6,500, twice as many. So I think that's a pretty clear indication that whatever's being done out there with all these governmental plans are not working particularly well. So I would urge an aye vote for Amendment 007. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I will agree with my good colleague that I don't think we are doing a good job of solving this problem. And that actually is part of the point of the bill, is to say let us look at this from the statewide perspective and see what things are working and what things aren't working. I assume this study will include some investigation into what different local governments have done, what's been effective, what hasn't been effective. And yes, I think Housing First is worth taking a look at. Is that the right strategy in every case? Are there other strategies? I think that is the whole point of the bill, actually, is to help us level set and figure out how do we move forward, because what we've been doing really hasn't been working. And if you live in a place that has a lot of people who are unhoused like I do the local solution is also not working And my local community is asking for help from both the state and the federal government And they're not getting the kind of support that they need to solve the problem. And also they would like for our regional partners to engage so that it isn't just our town that has to do all of the work, but that the surrounding towns, which are benefiting from the fact that we're offering programs, can also help contribute and help problem solve on what is the right way to do this. So I would ask for a no vote. The amendment takes out the statewide study. That's an integral piece of the bill. It's fully a third of the bill. And the reason that we're running the bill really does speak to a lot of what my good colleague just brought up. that we have maybe to change course and do things a little bit differently, and I don't think anybody really knows what are the right answers, and it's a complicated problem. So I would ask for a no vote on Amendment 7.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of Amendment L7. We have resources already in place in DOLA, in the Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing. They have a homelessness resolution program already in existence, and perhaps that's why the price tag of this amazing study is nothing. So my question is why do we have to mandate this in statute? I'm not really clear on that. I think that we should, if we have resources already looking at this, why aren't they already creating this study? I try to question our priorities, or unfortunately I feel like I have to question our priorities way too frequently. The thing that worries me a great deal about this bill is the amount of redundancy that I see could be created. And again, I'm kind of an efficient government person. and I don't like redundancy in government programs, because then you just end up serving nobody. And there are organizations already out there working on this problem, whether you consider it a successful venture or not, they are. and we already have people working on homelessness in state government in the division of housing so I get it if you want to run a bill if we want to create policy that is going to set up a new form of government that's what we're doing in this policy fine but to think that we are going to create a study that solves the problem, that's finally have that solution, because we know better than everybody else in the whole United States, right? I think homelessness is a problem throughout the world. Why aren't we already doing it with existing resources? Why do we have to create legislation to do that? The state of Colorado, I don't even know, and probably my friend the JBC member over here, has down to the nickel how much money the state of Colorado spends in grants for homelessness resources or homeless resources. I forget. Sometimes I don't know if I should put the Ness on homeless all the time. Inevitably, I get it wrong. No, we already provide a lot of money towards this from a grant standpoint and housing resources. I just, I don't understand how we are going to have the solution through another study that's being done for free, just in case I forgot to mention that. So I support L7 and ask that you do as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. just around the issue of how much planning we want to do. I'll just, in closing, mention one thing about the plan. The plan in Denver, which is now called All-In Mile High, per person cost to the city per year, $69,413 per person. 69,413 per person, and the number of homeless continues to rise. So I just asked the question, are these plans really getting to the root causes and the potential solutions to homelessness?

Thank you, Madam Chair. That was an interesting figure that the good senator from Highlands Ranch just said, because that's actually more money than we make. But to support L007, I think it's a good idea because this amendment prevents the expansion of centralized top-down policymaking. And if we strike this section, the amendment ensures that homelessness policy remains grounded in local control rather than driven by a one-size-fits-all statewide framework. I don't know where we're headed if the whole purpose of this is to create a homelessness authority, much like we have housing authorities. but this is a really good amendment and I certainly hope that you can support L007. I do.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I received, let me find it real fast, I received a text from one of the county clerks and recorders within my district. It's a county clerk, Justin Grantham, from Fremont County. I want to quote him here. He has concerns that the use of the documentation fee, the documentation fee for other government purposes says it will upset the flow of work in the recording division and has the possibility of reducing staff and forcing that part of the office to be out of compliance with statutory mandates. He says, granted, the word used is may rather than must or shall, but the county reallocates those funds. If it reallocates those funds, this could be devastating. So towards that, I would appreciate the consideration of this amendment.

Amendment L-9, amend re-engross bill, page 12, strike lines 16 through 22, read numbers succeeding subsections accordingly, page 12.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the amendment, oh, I'm sorry, thank you very much. I move L-009 to House Bill 1202.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment would remove the authority's ability to issue revenue or general obligation bonds. It limits the long-term financial liabilities created by the bill, which would alleviate the concerns that there would be some problems created downstream years later. It grants multijurisdictional authorities the power to issue bonds and pledge future revenue streams. That's what the bill does. While these tools can fund projects up front, they can also create long-term obligations that might outlast the original policy goals. So by removing bonding authority, what this amendment does is it ensures that these entities cannot take on significant debt that could ultimately impact taxpayers or future budgets. So I would appreciate a yes vote on this amendment, 009. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. the advocates for the bill really spend a lot of time talking about this fee and what it does and doesn't do and it is completely optional and so I would encourage no vote on this amendment and

Thank you, Madam Chair. So let me be specific on what the bill does on page 12 of the bill. I'm sorry, what the amendment does. Page 12 of the bill, it would remove the following words. An authority may issue revenue or general obligation bonds and may pledge its revenue and revenue-raising powers for the payment of such bonds. Such bonds must be issued on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in Section 43-4-609, The bonds, notes, and other obligations of an authority are not debts, liabilities, or obligations of the contracting local governments. So it would remove this, just that one section, that authority, that would prevent these obligations that would come up for years and years to come, even long after the intent of that debt was intended and obligated in the first place. So I just think this is a, this will relieve great concerns by our county clerks and recorders and would clean this up significantly. So I urge an aye vote.

Seeing none, the motion is for the adoption of Amendment L-9. All those in favor, please say aye.

All those opposed, no.

The no's have it, and the amendment is lost. Further discussion? Senator Rich.

There is an amendment on the desk. Will the clerk please read amendment number eight?

Senator Rich.

Further discussion, Senator Rich?

Further discussion on L-8, Senator Merchman.

When they do take action, it's every single local authority has to vote on it. And then they have to have an MOU in place for what happens if, I'm going to take Larimer County, if Larimer County, Loveland, and Fort Collins join together. That means all voters would have to vote on that. And so this is actually taking away the tool that, the local governments have asked for in this bill. So I would respectfully urge a no vote on L-008. Further discussion, Mr. Minority Leader.

Further discussion on L8? Seeing none, the motion is for the adoption of Amendment L8.

The no's have it, and the amendment is lost. Further discussion on the bill? Senator Frizzell.

Mr. Minority Leader.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of House Bill 1202.

The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. Will the clerk please read the title? Oh, excuse me. Senatorial 5. Thank you is to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 002 Will the clerk please read the title excuse me the motion is to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 002 All those in favor please say aye

The ayes have it and the body will proceed out of order. Will the clerk please read the title to Senate Bill 002.

To the, I'm sorry, Senator Exum.

Transportation.

To the Transportation and Energy Committee report, Senator.

Further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the Transportation and Energy Committee report.

The ayes have it, and the report is adopted. Oh, there is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read amendment number 11?

Senator Kim. Thank you. I move L011 to SB002.

Senator Kipp? Yeah. What L011 does is it brings all of the rest of the utility companies into a line with what we are doing in this bill. This is something the PUC asked for, and I request a yes vote.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members. The ultimate goal of this bill has never changed to help make electrical and gas utilities more affordable to lower-income folks. However, this bill proposed achieving that goal has changed dramatically over the last few weeks. The introduced version of the bill created a FAIR program, which stands for First Allotment of Residential Electricity, which XL and Black Energy submit their plans to the PUC to create allotments offering. However, the stakeholders' feedback to the FAIR program proposal convinced us that this was not the best way to achieve our goal. So the better solution emerged, and what we decided to do is codify the PIP program, which stands for Percentage of Income Payment Plan in an Energy Affordable Program run through Energy Outreach Colorado, which limits your household electric or gas bill to 6% of your yearly income. To qualify for the PIP, your household income must be below 80% of the area you're meeting income, AMI. You must not be past due on your energy bill, and you're not eligible for other referral programs. As amended, Senate Bill 2 codifies the existing program, and we codified a PIP program by making a few changes. For example, we're allowing people that are on the PIP program to be eligible for other programs like LEAP. which they're not allowed to do under the current PIP rules, and we're also preventing the utility companies from raising rates on other customers to cover the cost of the PIP program. And I want to thank the good senator from Fort Collins. Allow me to join her on this bill, and I will pass it over to her.

Thank you, and I would like to thank the good senator from Colorado Springs for joining me on this bill. So since 2012, investor-owned utilities in Colorado have offered percentage of income payment plans, also known as the PIP program. PIP plant caps energy costs for income-qualified households at a set percentage of their income. These programs are effective, but the problem is that they don't work consistently or transparently enough to reach everyone who needs them. Utilities use different names for their programs. application pathways are complicated and utilities are not required to clearly publish eligibility requirements how to apply or what benefits a customer can expect the result is that eligible households either don't know either don't know help exists or they struggle to navigate the process to get it sb 26002 fixes that it codifies a consistent affordability framework across investor-owned utilities requires clear program information on utility websites standardizes the the PIP name across providers, requires utilities to notify applicants within 30 days whether they've been approved or denied, and expands application pathways so customers can apply directly with their utility rather than being required to first enroll in another assistance program. This bill doesn't reinvent what utilities are already doing. It makes those programs work better together for the Coloradans who need them most. So we ask for your support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I was on the committee that heard this bill, and this just strikes me as the involvement by government into private industry in ways that we ought not to do. And I realize that this is a utility, so PUC is between government and the businesses. But regardless when we keep going down these paths of government involvement in consumer services products and so on we distort the industry And what there is of a free market in a utility just gets distorted in really not good ways And these keep compounding on themselves, and it's just not a good path to go down for all of us. I'd encourage a no vote on this bill, but yeah, let me just leave it there. Let's vote no on this bill. Thank you.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Friday April 17th.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has met and had a number of bills under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?

Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the adoption of the report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. After consulting with the minority and the majority leader, I get to go walk around a little bit of cow dung Monday and go to a bull sale, and I've been excused, so thank you.

Senator Mabalek. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to tell everyone that we're having appropriations tomorrow at 8 a in LSBB Tomorrow Friday right Everybody looking at me like what We will be hearing Senate bill 6 Senate bill 15 Senate bill 78 Senate bill 124 Senate bill 135 and Senate bill 151 and other bills as they may come along as a sign as a sign further announcements Mr. Majority Leader thank you colleagues we

I don't want to read bills across the desk. I don't want to read more bills across the desk. I don't want to read more bills across the desk. the motion is in the senate recess until 1 30 p.m. today because i was told that i must all in favor say aye opposed no the eyes have it in the senate recess until 1 30 p.m. today