March 12, 2026 · 3,608 words · 8 speakers · 68 segments
Capital Development Committee have come to order. Mr. Almazada, please call the roll.
Committee members, Henrickson?
Here.
Lindsay?
Excuse.
Pelton B?
Here.
Winter?
Morning.
Story?
Here.
Mr. Chair?
Here. Members, we have one item on the agenda today. It's a consideration of House Bill 1301, House Bill Funding. We have Representative Marshall here. You want to start us off, Representative Marshall?
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this was actually a last-second poll where the Aurora Mental Health people found out that had a title fall through just about a day before we had to pull titles. And they said, look, we have this parcel of land in Aurora already ready to go around the Anschutz campus area. for long-term civil commitment mental health issues. That is a dying sore need statewide. When I ran the first time, that was one of my top priorities was public safety, but under public safety, the big part about it is the complete collapse of our mental health systems in Colorado. In the 60s, we had about 2,000 mental health beds statewide. Now we have about 400, and we have like four times the population. And these people haven't disappeared. They're on the streets or they're in the jails, and you can talk to the old cops, and they'll tell you, you know, in the late 70s, early 80s, I could pick someone up and take them to the mental health ward at the hospital. Now I've got to book them, and guess what? They ain't making bail. So we are turning the penal system into our default mental health system, and we're trying to turn the schools into the default mental health system for those under 18. And neither one of those institutions is what they should be doing. So it was a dying need for bed space. The other huge issue is logistics. All the Denver Metro sheriffs have to take their people all the way down to Pueblo. And that takes a full day of driving down there and driving back in administrative processes for very highly trained, expensive personnel. So the logistics for the Arapahoe County Sheriff and Adams County Sheriff's, Douglas County Sheriff's, all of them in the metro area that have the most of these, it is a logistical savings for them to have something more local or expand it here more locally. I think that's probably the biggest part of it and again whenever I'm thinking of statewide stuff I don't ever want to exclude our other areas and I knew Mesa or the western slope was in dire need of help too so I talked to Rep Taggart about some issues out there and it looked like the funding that we would be able to get if we do this of course there would be a lot of upfront costs for the hospital itself and then the O&M, Operation of Maintenance, going forward, would be less than that massive upfront cost. So the Delta, we could send to Mesa County for them to take care of any long-term civil commitment needs they have out there. A hundred reasons not to do this. Weld County Sheriff, he has someone in his jail right now for almost two years waiting on a mental health bed. And there will be massive, well not massive, but very good downstream effects by putting this hospital at the top of the pyramid. I've of course told everyone we're not turning this into a Christmas tree. Everyone comes in with like, oh, we need transitional housing too. Oh, they're going to need transport. I'm like just the base hospital at the top of the pyramid for the most acute need patients because they are sucking up so many resources on the downstream side and the ERs and throughout the system that if we can at least skim those off and put them at the top, there should be very good downstream effects too. So that's basically the thought process. And like I said, there was 100 reasons not to do it. But at the end of the day, when we had our quick little stakeholding meeting, it was clear this is a dire need that we've identified for years, and no one's ever just pulled the trigger and moved forward. So I was like, let's pull the trigger and move forward. All right.
Thank you, Representative Marshall. Does the committee have any questions for the sponsor? Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate what you're doing, and I think there is a significant need, and we've been talking about it for a long time, the concerns are the cost. So help us understand a little bit more about the ballot measure element in this bill.
Representative Marshall. Yeah, I hope that the cost of financing would be delayed later, but the questions. But, of course, we identified the dire need. The very next question, again, of course, is, well, how are we going to pay for it? We looked over four different taxes, but last year when we had one or more of those enterprises to put fees on alcohol, the industry was apocalyptic and was saying, look, this is inappropriate. It should be a Tabor referendum. And they told me, said, if you would send this to the voters and have them vote for it, we would not be upset. We just don't want you to create an enterprise where you have these fees on us and you can just keep increasing them every year without the voters making a decision. So I went to our alcohol lobbyists and I told them, remember last year when I voted against that and you said as long as it was TABOR compliant and we sent it to the voters, you wouldn't have a problem for something that was responsible so well i got this project so we figured out how much we would need for about 44 million dollars a year by increasing the alcohol excise taxes because colorado has about the 49th lowest in the united states we haven't raised them since 1982 they pretty much and i've told the industry too it's like the reason you keep getting looked at and we keep coming back with these enterprises is because everyone knows that and you're probably going to get hit at some point so it'd be good if you maybe take a hit one time with the voters and it's TABOR capped and it's for a really good project so that's kind of the genesis of how we came up with the money and I'm actually, I don't want to pat ourselves on the back but it was a back of the envelope thing and it looks like our numbers came exactly pretty much where the state experts decided the numbers would be I think we came up with like 91 million I think they have like 94 95 in there and we were using $1,200 operational cost per bed they did 1300 so I don know exactly which question you looking for because the 44 million a year should cover the construction and ongoing operational costs very well And that works out too to a six You know, they are going to be screaming about how much, you know, the outside people, you know, Anheuser-Busch and everyone that will come in and aren't part of the locals, but it works out to, like, $0.03 a six-pack at the end of the day if they pass on every, you know, the entire tax to the consumer?
Representative Marshall, I see that they're, so they are already building another facility on this site, a crisis stabilization facility, and also a withdrawal management unit. Looks like there's also a supportive housing unit on the campus as well. Am I reading this right, that this facility will create 50 beds?
Yeah, we're looking at the minimum 50. The project is supposed to be 50 to 70, but what's being put forward to you all is the most conservative case we got.
And can you point me to anywhere else where the state has a permanent tax on the citizens that just fund one facility or one location like this, rather than an overall system?
No, not off the top of my head. We could get that information and bring it back. I'm just off the top of my head. I think there were, maybe back in the day, there were like juvenile homes or something, but no, not off the top of my head. But again, I guess my question, yeah, I would like to get that information, and maybe staff has it, but to me I find it rather unique that typically taxes go into a system to support a system statewide and gives that ability. This is going just to one particular project or one particular location. I guess two, because there's a Mesa opponent, but maybe staff can weigh in if you don't mind. No? Okay. Am I reading that wrong, though? That's what the tax is going to? It's just one? Okay.
Representative Marshall.
Yeah, I think that's also another unintended consequence of Tabor. It's a lot harder to go to the voters and ask, you know, give us $100 million to just do mental health. When we can point to something concrete that's absolutely needed, it's a lot easier for the voters to get their head around that, that, you know, the money is not going to be siphoned off to something else. It's like we were asking for this amount of money to do this project, and I think most of the voters can see the homeless out there, all the mental health issues. People know about it. I mean, I was on one of the right-wing radio shows before the start of the session, and we had a very good discussion about the lack of mental health capacity here in Colorado. And they were very open to that, too, understanding this is a core duty of the state. I mean, it's like our federal, you know, the correctional facilities or the like, and these people don't belong in prison or jails, and it's a core duty to take care of them. So, you know, paying some money to construct something exactly what that is, I don't think is unreasonable. I mean, I did just have, I mean, I don't know at the state level, but in Douglas County, we built the jails. You know, we had a very specific tax for the new jail when they built it years ago, and it was specifically, you know, a tax for that purpose. And then they kept it going after they built it, but, you know, that's another story. Yeah, I think that's at the local level. I think the state level may be a little different.
Any further questions for Representative Marshall? Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Marshall, in your calculations, did you take into account, I guess, the trend in sales of marijuana and how that has dropped off over time?
Representative Marshall.
Not directly, because it's only one part of it, and we kind of threw marijuana in to spread the pain, so to speak. I wasn't, and if you see the title, I kind of box myself in, but it's for harmful substances. So if we had some others, but we could drop marijuana, it's just, it was to spread the pain. And I'm a big believer in sin taxes, but the tax should go to ameliorate the issues and externalities of the sin. So at least the way I justify this in my mind is if you talk to a lot of the mental health people, so many of the seriously mentally ill self-medicate with alcohol or marijuana. So that's how I'm able to justify taxing marijuana and alcohol for an excise tax. If we need to back off on marijuana, that's fine, but then the alcohol would have to take a larger load of the tax, or we find something else.
Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I don't, it's not my belief that alcohol is the cause of mental health issues. I think it's a symptom that comes along with it, as you mentioned, you know, self-medicating. So, you know, I'm not a huge fan of syntaxes. so anyway I'm not convinced that this is the route like I get that we have a huge need there's no doubt about that and that we are searching for additional beds and struggling to make that happen but I don't know struggling on this
thank you Madam Vice Chair any further Other questions or comments? So I guess just from a standpoint of our next steps, we have a motion, but I would assume that from a letter standpoint, the staff maybe wants to hear from the committee so that they can create that letter. Ms. Forbes.
Yeah, Nina Forbes, legislative council staff. Yeah, you could move to recommend support for the legislation or not. And if you have thoughts about what you'd like us to include in the letter to the House Health Committee, which is the committee of reference, you could describe those.
Ms. Forbes, can you, so there needs to be a motion no matter if the committee chooses to support this piece of legislation or not, or recommend this piece of legislation or not. Is that correct?
Yeah, I guess you could, you could choose to recommend the legislation or not. But yeah, I guess it would be good to have a motion to direct us in some way to, so we know what to put in the letter. Thank you.
So I think maybe what we do is we'll take a motion and then during the voting, if the committee can kind of give their thoughts Madam Vice Chair Representative Winter Mr Chair maybe this is a question for staff
Is this bill scheduled for committee right away, or is there a possibility for us to talk to some folks and stakeholder a little bit on this after hearing the presentation before we would entertain a motion?
Ms. Forbes.
Currently, I believe the bill is scheduled in House Health for next Wednesday, the 18th. So, and that would be a pretty quick turnaround, I guess, for us to meet again, because I haven't announced this yet, but the JBC did request a joint meeting to discuss the capital recommendations next Tuesday, the 17th. So I guess our options for another meeting about this are a little limited.
Senator Henriksen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sitting here wrestling with this too for some of the reasons that our vice chair said. Some a little different. I see the need. And, yeah, we've got a shortage of investment in mental health. We have a shortage of investment in substance use recovery. I am also concerned, as the chair mentioned, with there being two facilities that the tax revenue would be directed towards. I think that when we have taxes on controlled substances, that it makes sense for those to be excised beyond what the sales tax is, that those should be remitted to alleviating harm that comes when there's addiction related to those substances. We have several programs throughout the state that deal with that, and we've got funding sources dedicated for that broadly. I think that's a precedent that I don't want to deviate from, and I think that from a capital development committee standpoint, creating standalone funding sources for capital development projects isn't something that is a precedent that we want to start either. We have cash funding for universities, but that's very different altogether. So I absolutely support the goals that we're trying to get at here, but I have heartburn with the bill itself and the mechanism, and I think that's where my comments would be directed towards if we were to have a letter.
Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Ms. Forbes, you indicated that we're probably going to have a meeting next Tuesday, but is it you're thinking there's just not enough time to have both things on the agenda next Tuesday and give us a minute to talk with other folks about this policy before we make a decision or a recommendation or not a recommendation?
Ms. Forbes.
So the meeting with JBC next Tuesday would start at 8.30, and it's going to be at their meeting room. So I guess if we wanted to separately have a CDC meeting, we'd have to start at whatever time you all think would be appropriate for however much time you need, I guess, in this room, and then we'd need to move across the street, which we could do. Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is it possible we could just invite them here since we might have something else on our agenda and ask them to come here so that the flow is a little smoother and more efficient on our end?
Ms. Forbes.
I can certainly ask them that. Yeah. It would save 20 minutes of transition time, honestly.
I will just say that I'm prepared to make a decision on this today. I think that we were able to get the memo from staff, two or three pages. I think that gives us enough information. I think that the bill's not overly complicated to get, but I would be prepared to make a decision today on a recommendation. And I think that, you know, obviously this is going to be heard in House Education, which I think you're a member of Education, which the vice chair is a member of. You know, I think that so I would just put that out there. if the committee's, you know, I'll defer to you all if you're prepared to make this decision, but as the chair, I'm ready to vote. Representative Winter, are you good with, are you prepared today or? Elton?
Yeah. Yeah, I'd prefer to wait, but.
Seems like the majority of the committee is prepared to go today. And so any further discussion or questions on House Bill 1301. Madam Vice Chair, you want to make the motion? Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Winter.
Thank you. This is just a comment for Rep. Marshall. I'll chat with you offline about it a little bit more, sir.
Representative, Madam Vice Chair.
I guess, I suppose the motion is to, for CDC to consider a letter to the... I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay, so...
Sorry we be in a brief senatorial five Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll come back. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that CDC send a letter to the Committee of Reference to not recommend 1301, given the concerns that have been expressed relative to the capital construction structure of the bill.
Any further discussion on that motion? Madam Vice Chair
I would just reiterate that I'm concerned about the financial structure the excise tax on marijuana and liquor it's not one or the other it's just collectively doing it in that way I just don't feel like that's a necessarily stable or appropriate way to fund the structure of a mental health facility and the ongoing maintenance in perpetuity. And while we, I think, we have discussed already and stated that there is a need for mental health beds, I think this idea needs to have more and longer conversation, especially when it was acknowledged that this came about just a day before, you know, the bill titles were due. An effort of this magnitude, I think, just needs more time. And I will just add from, you know, a purely CDC perspective here, you know, we are presented a number of projects that are needed throughout the state. You know, a number of controlled maintenance projects. And I think that, you know, my concern from a CDC perspective and dollars coming into the state is that I think there needs to be the ability to utilize those dollars in the best way possible. These funds that are being proposed are obviously limited, you know, to one or two areas. And I think that with the position that we're in, you know, the vice chair mentions all the time that, you know, it's in the billions of dollars that we have to say no to every single year. That if we're going to bring new revenue in, that we should have that ability to really prioritize and see where those dollars go rather than kind of just pigeonhole it to one area. And so fully appreciate the sponsor and what you're trying to achieve. I think that there is a problem here and we don't fund behavioral health to the standard that we should be. And we need to change that. I just, I think from a CDC perspective, I'm not sure if this necessarily gets to the best way of doing that.
So with that, Mr. Almazade, please call the roll.
Committee members, Henriksen.
Hi.
Lindsey excused. Pelton?
Aye. Winter? Pass.
Story? Yes. Winter?
Based on not being able to look into it further, yes.
Mr. Chair? Yes. And that passes unanimously.
Do you need any other further direction? Do you have any other announcement Ms. Forbes?
Just I'll chat with JBC staff about our joint meeting and let you all know about any updates.
Perfect members that concludes our business. Capital development committee is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.