Joint Budget Committee [Mar 30, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Yeah.

In that case, Madam Chair, as we go through this, just big picture, we are looking at denying tens of millions of dollars in the WINS request here, starting with this one here. I hope that this does not come across to the state employees we have as not valuing deeply the work they do We do We know that this state only runs and the programs that this state runs only run because of our excellent state employees We deeply grateful for that work We appreciate them and this year budget is awful for all folks and we appreciate that they understand that and I am sorry for the piece that they have to bear on this. So with that I move to deny

I move staff rec to deny R7 co-wins partnership agreement housing pilot.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, state employees have had their say in how it is that we approach these cuts. There are different options, things we can say yes to, things we can say no to, still maintaining our commitment. The goal is that no state employee gets a paycheck next year that is less than the paycheck they're getting this year. But the 2% salary range adjustment is not within our ability to do this here. They recognize that and because of that I move staff recommendation on the 2% structural salary range adjustment which is to deny.

Thank you Madam Chair. I move staff recommendation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kim, if we could just go back for a second. Your second to last in the analysis, the first sentence, only sentence, in the bottom two paragraphs, I'm still trying to figure out, you make the statement, if paid for discreetly costs and goes on, I'm trying to figure out what the word discreetly in that particular context, how to interpret it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Alfredo Kim, JBC staff. So Representative Taggart, can you give me where you're?

Okay.

There's only one sentence.

It starts with staff estimates that a 2% across the board, but then you have a comma,

I trying to figure out what discreetly means in that context Right So historically when the executive branch submits the governor request for salary adjustments they give one number, 3.1%, across the board, COLA, salary increase. And then they fit everything into that.

In my mind, that's not a good way to address the actual cost of components. So by saying discreetly, what I'm saying is if we just addressed a 2% structural salary range adjustment, that should actually come with a cost that moves everybody 2%. And on that basis, it is an equivalent cost as a 2% ATB COLA, which I identify what that cost would look like.

But historically, traditionally, they just include this as a part of it. So what they'll say is 3.1% across the board COLA, and then attached to that is a 2% or a 3% salary range adjustment that allows structurally our salary ranges to remain kind of competitive with the market in that single move.

What I was saying is really what we should be doing is thinking about salary range adjustments kind of on their own, that there's an actual cost. It ends up getting hidden in the way that it's traditionally submitted. But that's basically what I was getting at.

Okay. All right. Vice Chair Bridges.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Vice Chair Bridges.

Are there any objections?

Can we get some explanation here as to why we're doing that? This is a, well, Mr. Kem.

Senator Kerkmeyer. And it stays within the 6% limitation?

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree. We can't do the across the board. But I think that step pay is what I've heard from state employees is sort of the most important part of moving forward with the partnership agreement and ensuring that we are paying competitively to folks in the private sector and we can retain top quality talent here in the state doing the work that we all fund with the entire rest of this budget. So I think there's another question here, but I'm happy to make the motion whenever we're done discussing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So what is the difference with the request and the recommendation? Why is the request only at $12.8 million general fund and it includes the step-like component, yet staff recommendation is at $26.7 million general fund, and it doesn't appear that it does include the step-like, does not include step-like component?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Senator Kirkmeyer, this goes back to the way that the executive branch request is submitted. it pays for as much of the step through that 3.1% across the board increase and then the remainder of the step that's not covered by that is included. So that's that smaller amount that was included in the request. What I've done is I've broken it apart. I said, if we're actually going to pay for this component, here is the actual cost of step pay aside from the ATB COLA. And so in your recommendation, the estimate, the $26.7 million, one, doesn't include the step-like component,

Mr. Kemp.

Senator Kirkman. And so I noticed where, so your recommendation includes the judicial department, doesn't include the legislative branch.

Mr. Kim. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Senator Kirkmeyer, there are no classified employees as a part of the legislative branch. They would fall under a step-like increase if the committee were to fund a step-like increase that was equivalent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And because it seems like that's what you're asking about, the step-like increase is the next question. And I will be moving to approve the step-like increase as well. I think it's important that we treat all the folks doing the same kind of work in a similar way. That being said, just since no one else is speaking, my understanding is that the legislative budget will be amended to reflect what it is that we are deciding here in this document for employees, that they held all increases at zero across the board, no changes to Health Life Dental. They were waiting on us to make our decisions here before they made their decisions and that there will be an amendment to the legislative budget to reflect the decisions that we make here. I actually don't know the answer to that, and that remains to be seen. That would be the purview of the bill sponsors for the legislative budget.

But the step plan increase is based off of, again, what? I mean, if it's not based off of inflation or COLA or whatever, how is it based? And what percentage increase does it actually amount to?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The step increase, as I said, it's a formula where over every approximately, I think, three years, there is a step increase. When an employee is in their position and they remain in that position, every couple of years they get an increase associated with the years of their experience in that position. That is all kind of a formula-based system for stepping, and that just occurs based on the employees that are in those particular positions. What I have calculated that equivalent amount to be for a step-like increase is 1.2% of salary base.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And my understanding is a big part of the reason that we instituted step increases is because when folks were hired in or when they got promoted, they were sort of locked at that amount, and then all new hires were coming in at a higher rate, and you had, I think it was called wage compression, was the phrase that was being used. We had new people coming in, just getting hired to the state, doing the same job as someone who's been here 20 years, getting paid significantly more than the person who'd been here for 20 years. And this just ensures that everyone is getting paid essentially what it is that they should be, given what the equivalent in the private sector would be making. I'm seeing a nod from, yeah.

That's basically correct.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe I'm jumping too far forward, but I'm not used to doing compensation like this at all when it comes to, and please this is not a statement about the wonderful people that work for this state government, but we're going through this component by component. Senator, you said there are tens of millions of dollars here. And when I get to the final chart, there's $1.9 million. And so I have to tell you, this is very puzzling to me because, for instance, The step pay increase goes from the initial request of $11.8 up to $26, almost $27 million. And so I'm uncomfortable that we're doing this. I would rather make sure I understand the big picture, like this last chart, AND THEN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL ONES, BECAUSE I DON SEE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS HERE FOLKS SO TO CLARIFY WHAT WE ARE CONTEMPLATING THE WAY THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS PRODUCED I see tens of millions of dollars here folks So to clarify what we are contemplating the way that the agreement was presented is that essentially we would fund this across increase that that would be sort of funded first, and that that would take into account the step increases that were also a part of the agreement. But if we did what Mr. Kem recommended, which is that what first should be funded is STEP, then STEP, to make that a discrete cost versus something that is already calculating in what we have put into the across-the-board increase, then STEP would cost more. If you're not calculating part of the cost of STEP as the across-the-board increase, that is the difference that you see there between the request and the recommendation, is that if we just discreetly took STEP out of the whole package and said if we only funded STEP, this is what it would cost, then when you get to a later section on the across-the-board COLA increase, Mr. Kem is providing different options for the committee to consider about different across-the-board increases. But those amounts, too, would be different if you first factored in step and then you contemplate these across-the-board increases. What we will get to is that while I believe that our state employees are deserving of an across-the-board increase, while I recognize that our state employees are facing an affordability crisis that our constituents across the state are facing, and it will be challenging to them that we in this general fund environment that we are in cannot afford an across-the-board increase. And so that will get us to a savings of tens of millions of dollars. We also did not approve the 2% range adjustment, which will achieve some savings. And then there are some other questions on health life and dental that we'll get to.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And that's what you're saying is exactly why I'm concerned. I want to be fair to our employees. Make no mistake about that. But also we've started this by saying or the senator started this by talking about tens of millions. And I'm looking at a summary chart that has a change of 1.9 million. And so unless this isn't the full recommendation here.

and you look at the across-the-board COLA increase, and this is at a recommended 2%, and you get to that table that shows $34,903,000, $4,440 of general fund savings that if we don't approve an across-the-board increase, that is million that we are not spending in general fund But with all your respect that is completely offset by a step pay increase that two and a half times bigger than the original request And I realize they were in different buckets and Mr. Kem is doing a very good job. but net net this is a change of 1.9 million dollars. It is not a change of tens of millions of dollars when it comes to the general fund.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that the delta you're seeing is not reflective of what the governor's office had requested on this. The delta between where it is that we will end up today and the governor's request is tens of millions of dollars. I would love to get a chart on this for Mr. Kim once we're all done. May I?

On page A8, I think this is correct. The ATB slash COLA increase at 2% in Mr. Kim's recommendation is $34,000, basically $35 million. We just denied that recommendation. So that actually becomes, we will. No, yeah, we will. I will move to do that and we'll see what the committee does. I thought that was the across the board thing up there. No, that's the next thing down here.

Oh, the range adjustment.

So if we don't agree with that recommendation, it's about $30 million.

But we're on the step like now, aren't we? So, but I want to know.

Okay.

Thank you. To clarify, so the table on page A8 reflects all the salary increase components. The top of the table shows what the governor's request totaled $66.9 million. My recommendations came in at $64.9 million, only to kind of approximate their total amount. But that ATB COLA increase is entirely discretionary, as I communicated at figure setting. But short of that, the difference I'm reflecting relative to the governor's request is $2 million less, but coming in at about the same approximate amount.

I moved step pay, but not step in like.

You did move?

Okay.

I move step pay increases. My understanding is that staff recommendation is the full implementation of the governor request inclusive of the COLA denial. Sorry, the inclusive of the 2% structural salary range adjustment. So that if we move this and then we deny the COLA increase, that the full step will be implemented. It looks like a larger number because of the order of operation, but that this is the full step pay increase, as it is that we're approving things. I just want to make sure that the math is right. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Similarly, I think that anyone doing the similar job of someone who was getting the step pay increase should also get a step increase. So I move. And Mr. Kim, your recommendation on step like, is it the same as essentially the step pay, or would we want to move the request on this in order to stay in line?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move the Mr. Kemm's staff recommendation for an equivalent increase for step-like employees.

And so non-classified employees are getting step increases as well? It's step-like, which is a discretionary, it's an amount of money that goes to the department,

So it isn't actually a step increase?

Yes.

Yes, average 1.2%. Because merit doesn't go to each employee equally.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Right.

So it functions like a merit.

Right.

Vice Chair Bridges.

Vice Sherbridges.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5 to 1 with Kirkmeyer objecting. Okay. Vice Sherbridges.

Are there any objections? Do you have a question, Rep Taggart?

So that means?

Vice Chair Bridges.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of six to zero. Okay. Vice Chair Bridges.

Well, last year they asked for an increase. We said no.

And so it's still at 88.12?

Yeah. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Vice Chair Bridges.

Okay. Senator Kirkbeier.

Well, everyone will, regardless of whether you get stepped. There's no way to parse out. Okay, well, then I didn't understand what Senator Bridges said.

My recommendation was to remain at an 88-12 split.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Withdraw my previous motion. For the HLD adjustment, I move that we cover this year's increase in costs in HLD to ensure, for all employees, but to ensure that even those who don't receive a step or step-like increase don't see a decrease in their pay.

Rep. Tigard.

I appreciate what you're saying there, and I'll support you. I must say for the future, I'm going to continue to say that it is not a good practice to do 100% year after year. employees of any organization have as much impact on health costs as anybody, and they make their own decisions as it relates to their lifestyle. And I just firmly believe, and I understand it this year, but I'm going to continue to say they need to have skin in this game. But this year I understand because of some of the other actions that you've taken. I don't think it's a good practice.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Taggart. And I think it's a different conversation if we had given it across the board. But given that we have not done that, to have a state employee that gets a paycheck in January, or gets a paycheck in July, because we have our fiscal year, that is less than the paycheck they received in June, that's not treating our state employees fairly. So I hear you. I think this year it's important that we make this adjustment.

So why would it have been less? Why would their paycheck be less?

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Let's go to that. Vice Chair Bridges.

I understand. But you keep saying that it's not decreasing their paycheck. But their pay is going to remain the same. We're not reducing their pay by not giving them an increase. What we're doing is we are increasing how much we pay for their health insurance, and they won't have any skin in the game on paying for their own health insurance. They're still paying the 12%. They're still paying. State employees still see a reduction. We would be paying 88%. We're paying the increase to continue staying at 8812.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We're paying whatever it is it costs to ensure that the amount they deposit in their bank, right, that the dollar amount that they have to use to pay for groceries, housing, taking care of their kids, whatever it is, that the dollar amount that they see coming into their account in June is the same as what they see in July, that they don't see a decrease in July. The total compensation package will include an increase because we will be paying for whatever the increase is in their health care costs. but the key here is that what is deposited in their bank account will not go down in July from what it was in June.

Yes, because I think that taxpayers also believe that they should have access to the programs and services that they are paying for. And if we don't have state employees to do those jobs because their take-home pay is less, so they went and got a job somewhere else because state government wasn't willing to actually just maintain a bare minimum. They're not getting an increase, but if we are not maintaining this bare minimum, then I'm not sure that state employees are going to continue to feel incentivized to stay here or to start work with us. And I think that is an important calculation in ensuring that taxpayers are actually able to access the programs and services that they are paying for Vice Chair Bridges Thank you Madam Chair It about take pay It is about making sure that state employees don't see a decrease in take-home pay. I think if there's a disagreement on this committee about whether some state employees should see a decrease in their take-home pay or not, I'm comfortable telling the people of Colorado that I made a vote to make sure that no state employees saw a decrease in their take-home pay. Some didn't see an increase. Some did see an increase. But we made sure that at least no state employees saw a decrease in their take-home pay. I'm comfortable going out to taxpayers and telling them that we voted to do that.

And that's fine. You get to do that. And I get to be comfortable in what I'm saying is, and essentially what we're saying is, that to our taxpayers, you get to suck it up when it comes to the increase in your health insurance premiums, and then you also get to pay for the increase in health insurance premiums for state employees who are not getting any reduction in their paycheck. They are getting, and they're not also going to have to pay for the increase in their health insurance premiums because your taxpayer dollars are going to do that. Our taxpayers, most of them are barely making it, getting by month-to-month kind of thing. We saw on the forecast how they're charging more on their credit cards. They're going into more debt. They're having a hard time making it. Everyone's complaining about their property taxes, which is not our fault, by the way. But it just goes on and on. And we talked about the unaffordability in the state, and yet you want to say to taxpayers that, yeah, you pay for your own increase in your health insurance premiums, and you also get to pay for the increase in the health insurance premiums for state employees. Well, that's what this is about. It's not about making sure that paychecks, that they're getting paid more or they're getting paid less or whatever. Their paychecks are going to be the same as they were. It's the reduction for the cost of increases to health insurance. And so you're saying taxpayers get to pay for that. That's what this is saying. Just so we're clear. I mean, I think it's great that you want to make sure everybody else is held whole while our taxpayers are paying for their health insurance increase.

Rep. Brown, did you have your hand up?

Senator Kirkmeyer.

we got the total comp market report, which said that basically the total compensation package is 9% below the market. If we are already not competitive to the market, and the idea is that we should then make decisions that reduce state employees' take-home pay, in the aggregate, we are just going to fall further and further behind. So, yes, you could take the dollars that we are putting toward total compensation here, and you could rework them so that it shows up differently and it's not in the HLT adjustment. But the decision that we are making today is to ensure we are doing the best we can for all of our state employees with the limited resources that we have to, again, ensure that state employees' take-home pay does not go down. with the decisions that we make in this tight budget.

I made a motion.

Madam Chair, will there be a footnote or something that makes sure that we understand that it's a one-time deal? Mr. Cum. Thank you, Madam Chair. There is no footnote contemplated for this and has not been recommended.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It my deep hope that we are able to increase salary next year for state employees in a way that is at least reflective of what we see in general market increases AND THAT THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF thing we have to do moving forward I think that the conversation to be had with the executive branch about how it is that the budget committee responds to state employee compensation is one that we should continue to explore. This is not great for us. I think it's not great for state employees, and it's not great for the executive branch either. So I don't think we need a footnote saying this is one time.

So I would not like to have a footnote in here that says this is a one-time deal. It's a two-time deal or a three-time deal or however many-time deal we need to make it to make sure that we're taking care of our state employees. Rep Taggart.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kemp.

Rep Taggart.

Absolutely.

I wish I had a break.

Well.

Five minutes?

Done.

You're done at 1?

No, no, no.

At 1?

Yeah.

How about do people have their lunch here?

Do you know which number that was?

Yeah, it was OSPB comeback packet, number 14 on page 35.

OSPB, this one?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move.

No, I haven't even got to the page yet. Great. We'll hold it. Madam Chair, what I will be moving here is essentially just the original governor's request, which I think was also staff rec. Is that accurate? Great. Also, I'll be moving staff rec for Comeback 14. Page 35. 35. Page 35. And that we had been holding off on this decision item to ensure that there was work going on across the street to make sure we are trying to address caseload from both directions. If we are going to be improving an increase in beds because more people are either being assigned to DOC or are staying longer than they need, we need to ensure that we are working on these prison population management tools so that we are not keeping people in DOC longer than is necessary if they are eligible and safe for release. So we have, I think, received feedback from our colleagues that these conversations have gone well and are moving along. And so I am comfortable approving the request today.

I did not.

I'm not sure, did we factor this in or is this already, how does this affect the final balancing here? Mr Bracke or Director Harper It is not in our system It our current system reflects the original denial of the request Okay Okay Thank you Good.

Good to move on. Yes, thank you. I read through it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff recommendation regarding Comeback 14 DOC R1 BA 01 prison caseload, which is also a department request. Are there any objections?

Is that this? I don't know if people need new copies of it.

Packet 19. It's in the slate packet.

Yep, I do.

Do you have it?

Yep, they own my own.

Mr. Bracke. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, that's what's in here. My re-revised recommendation. Re-engrossed, I don't know, whatever. staff recommends a net increase of 10.9 million and 138.3 ft at the prisons in the doc's east canyon city complex talking to them that's kind of where they thought it would be the best place to start and i agree you can see all the numbers laid out there in terms of kind of the relationship between overtime hours during the calendar year 2025 the number of shifts that non-security personnel are working at those facilities and then the related cost. You see that after factoring in a reduction of the overtime line item, it comes out to $10.9 million in FY2627 and annualizes to $13.3 million in the following year. I agreed with them that it would be a good place to start in the East Canyon complex because they're better able to hire folks there. but still there are a number of folks that are out on leave and the overtime issue is pretty prominent there as well i'm proposing a 20 offsetting reduction to the overtime line item in our original conversation i guessed around 30 but given where some of your more problematic facilities like buena vista sterling and the denver complex are unaffected by this i backed it off a little bit down to 20 which i think is still pretty aggressive helps you balance and there's going to be a lot to figure out next supplemental time. So that's my recommendation there and it comes out to a net of 10.9 million. And then on the next page is just some additional context for the recommendation and some things for the department to think about when they come forward, if they come forward next year with an expansion of this.

Senator Amable. So, Is everybody confident that they're going to find 138.3 FTE in the locations that you're to work in the pilot facilities? Mr. Brackey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Maboy, the data suggests that their ability to hire there is pretty good compared to the rest of the system. I got first paragraph there on page or towards the bottom and the reasons for the recommendation. their vacancy rate on paper there is pretty low. It's like 7% as compared to other facilities like Buena Vista where it's closer to 30. So I thought it was a good place to start for that reason. And they're also struggling with overtime based on people on leave. So it seems like a good test case. Were there other locations that you would have considered as well as, you know, if there were two places you would pilot? I think the East Canyon Complex is a pretty reasonable place to start. I mean, on paper, linemen are doing okay right now, but historically they've struggled, so it's hard to know what kind of fluctuations would happen there. Sterling and Buena Vista are kind of in Denver Complex would require, I think, different solutions beyond just this, given their persistent struggle to hire. And then after that, you're getting into like rifle and Delta and some of the other smaller level one facilities. So I think in terms of just the number of overtime hours being worked in these Canyon complex relative to their probable ability to hire, it seems like that's as good a place to start as any. Okay.

I will say I know that we are in a difficult year, but I am, I also am very concerned about the status of our facilities within DOC and what is happening with staffing and the anxieties expressed by the folks working there. and the challenges that they are facing as we're asking, well, it's not listed in here, but, you know, in Mr. Brackey's other paper about, you know, teachers and social workers and other non-correctional officer, people working in those roles, having to take on the roles of correctional officers and what that is doing to morale and our ability to actually maintain safe and secure environments. So, Senator Mobley.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

I think we did that.

I sure you have not acted on that next We address that next And I recommending that you don approve next year request on account of trying to true up the relief factor And then next supplemental time you may have to true up some stuff some more But this unfunded para liability would apply across DOC, not just to East Canyon where we're doing this. so what do you but you think we should just not do it anyway Mr. Reckie Madam Chair there's a few reasons the pilot helps but there's also other areas where they've been using vacancy savings to cover shortfalls such as in the contract clinical staff which you've already plussed up by $10 million so I don't know that I could say that they could use vacancy savings to cover any shortfalls next year but they're in a better position fiscally now with respect to compensation than they were when the fiscal year started. So my sense is to move forward with these recommendations, and then if things need to be trued up a little bit at supplemental time next year, then we can kind of see where they're at with all these different hiring. And so you've put them in a better financial position, which is why I'm recommending against the unfunded liability for next year and then kind of figuring out as we go. Okay. Good.

I think possibly. Yeah. Yeah, $10.9 net. And then plus the reserve. Ah. Yeah, plus the reserve, I guess. All right. All right.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of six to zero. Okay. And now the next one, BA4, Mr. Bracke.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff rec BA for unfunded pair liability shortfall. Re-revised, I guess. The re-revised reimagined recommendation for FY 2627.

There was a comeback. It wasn't really a comeback. that was an idea to purchase a prison, which is not really palatable to anyone sitting here for a variety of reasons. But then there was also the,

It's just part of controlled maintenance. They did a comeback. So maybe we don't need to take it up.

And I understand that OSPB or DOC has provided you with some numbers about what they would need to do in order to start contracting for some additional capacity.

Yeah, Madam Chair, I can't speak necessarily to the details, just the numbers. and what I'm seeing is that it would come out to about $5.9 million without considering the reserve and FY26-27 potentially annualizing to $40.7 million the following year, which would be addressed via normal caseload stuff. I think the details that I'm lacking here are any potential contractual obligations they might incur in the negotiation of that contract.

That's the way it's been calculated in the documents I've seen. So it would go, the calculations are assuming that they would pay for 400 beds in Q4 of FY26-27, and then 752 beds for a full year in FY27-28, which drives up the cost. And part of the other factor driving up the cost is the higher per diem rate, So it would be $115 ostensibly in 26-27 going up to about 120 in 27-28.

Madam Chair, I do not know. I think my recollection in the comeback, and I'd have to find the specific pages, I've heard a tale of kind of in whatever the negotiated contract is, contracting for a certain minimum number of beds at a facility. I just don't know any of that. I haven't done any analysis on it. I just know what the numbers are.

Vice Chair Burgess Thank you Madam Chair Does the would a fence the fence we discussed have any impact on this particular group of folks that we would be paying for here or is that a different level of custody

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the question for the committee and the question for Mr. Brackey here is, is this the sort of thing where we, like, move a placeholder? I mean, if it's Q4 at the end of next year, I think it's irresponsible for us to say that we're not going to build this into next year's budget. But I also know that folks are working on alternative plans for this and to say, yes, we're locked into five at the end of next year for Q4, and we're going to be spending 20 every year for the next four years. Forty. Forty. Sorry. Wishful thinking there. That number is so high. If we're spending 40 every year for four more years, it just feels like we ought to be doing some work in figuring out some other alternative here that isn't $40 million a year. And whatever that might look like, I don't think it looks like a new prison, But if it's $40 million a year for four years that we get locked into, then I don't know how that conversation goes the rest of this particular legislative session and certainly between now and next year. I don't know. Mr. Brackey.

Senator Imobley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, I would be reluctant to have as our plan be that we put more money into this private prison and then have less people in our state-run prisons in the event that we don't actually need all of that capacity because it's cheaper for us to do it ourselves and also because my understanding is that people get more of the services that they need at the prisons that DOC runs and that a lot of those things are not available to people in the private system. And so I'm comfortable saying, hey, we think it's going to be $5 million in this budget year, but I don't really want to, I don't know what our role is in saying whether this is a good contract to sign or not. But I guess I'd like to see a more robust plan because today's the first time I heard that, well, if we don't need all of that, we'll still have to pay for it because we've contracted for it, but we'll just shuffle people around and have less people in some other place. That wasn't my understanding of what was going to happen. Being asserted was first lowering the jail backlog and then other private beds. Yeah, but it sounds like we're having to make a commitment to fill this new facility. And I just, I don't know. If there's some doubt about whether that's needed, I would like to understand that. Well, I don't think the administration seems in doubt, but Senator Kirkmeyer.

Mr. Brackey. Madam Chair, Senator Krueckmeyer, you can still add the 288 beds at Delta. I think the department would assert they would have trouble filling all 288, but the fence isn't a prerequisite to bringing those beds online. It's just a question of how many people they can actually put in those beds. So the fence and whether or not you can appropriate money to add capacity at Delta are two separate issues. Okay.

Mr. Bracke. Madam Chair, Senator Kirkmeyer, that was the assumption in the request, is that by bringing the 930, 40 beds online, they'd be able to draw down the local jail backlog to a point that's considerably lower than where it is now, around 600 or 700. So by considerably lower than 600 or 700, because I think at one point it was at 681, the last time I think we had this discussion about it, and we had budgeted for basically something less than 300. So we're talking like 400 or 500,

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kurt Meyer, that's correct. I think, yes, the budget currently assumes that there will be an average daily population of about 330 folks in local jails after bringing on the 940 beds that you've already approved. And what they're saying here is that the forecasters suggesting they need an additional amount of capacity somewhere else. In part, I might add, because the 300 beds at Centennial South are taken up by the project at Sterling.

That's true.

Can you call on her and Senator Immobile? Yes, and that was Senator Immobile speaking.

Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've only been here for three years, and this debate has done this yo-yo all three years that I've been here as well. So might we consider for the contract to press that into a supplemental if absolutely necessary rather than putting it in the long bill? Because we do have 940 additional beds that we placing in there and we opening up another 350 beds basically in county jails I just wonder could we hold and do that part as a supplemental if it is necessary given this yo we been going through

But that means we're increasing 1,600 bets. Does that sound... By the end of the year. Yeah, I mean, none of this is what I would like to do with the money. But that's 10% in addition to the population we have today. That's a full 10%. It's just, yeah. Do you like the numbers, Mr. Bracken?

Yes.

Well, Senator Kirchmeyer.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm also not in favor of doing more dollars until we have more info, but I'm also not in favor of knowing that there's probably a $5 million hole in our budget before the end of next year. So is there some way to do like a trigger or some sort of like pre-supplemental that gives them the runway they need to negotiate the contract and bring the beds online without saying right now, go and open those beds in the moment. It's more than a year away. Yeah, it's essentially like a placeholder for a pending supplemental, not for a bill this year, but for a supplemental that we expect will come.

And Director Harper, could we do that?

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move for a placeholder to balance everything right now. I think I'm going to try to do it. That's why we're here. That's great.

Move for a $5.9 million placeholder for potential DOC supplemental for caseload.

We've done it all. Not that I'm aware of. Okay.

Director Harper. Madam Chair, I would think you just picked it up.

DATED TODAY, JBC staff come back technical adjustments. You don't necessarily need to make any Any decision on this today, or frankly, you've already given a motion that allowed me to make these adjustments. We just wanted to put them in front of you. That authority saved you 25 potential comebacks from JBC staff. This is the list of the ones that I approved. It is small dollar amounts with a couple of exceptions. One is a reappropriated funds adjustment to align with your action in a different department. and there's a $3.7 million increase in federal funds in the BHA. Otherwise, it's small dollar amounts. You'll note in the FTE column on the far right on page two, there is a large FTE adjustment in higher education, but there's no decision item or anything associated with that. That's the net change in FTE across the institutions based on the institution's estimates. Again, you've already approved authority to make these adjustments, but we committed to put it in front of you. So if you had things you wanted to revisit, you could do so before you close. Feel free to take a look at it. And if you have concerns or questions now, then we can bring in the relevant folks or we can address it later. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that you had it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Curry. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Bridges. It's $264,116, it looks like. Sorry, to correct myself, it's $264,116.

THANK YOU.

WE THOUGHT SO AS WELL.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to just needle the potential Secretary of the Treasury. If this is the way he rounds numbers, we could have some interesting times in the future. Thanks, Rick.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to be clear that I know that the way that we do supplementals is 1331s, and I know that there is a chance that Mr. Abracchi could come in and say, we knew this was going to happen. It's exactly what they said was going to happen. This is, you know, known. But I think that this is a, is there a footnote we can put in to say essentially what we don't know is exactly how we're going to solve this. Other ideas may come up, and when it comes up, if this is the best idea they still have and we all have, that then we accept that as like new information that we didn't know at the time because the committee isn't sure that that is exactly what the new information is. Is that okay? I just want to make sure that we don't deny this for technical reasons.

Thank you Madam Chair Mr Vice Chair I think we are now under clear direction from you all to assume that we likely to get a supplemental and I think we will navigate that It hard for me to picture a footnote that would work here but we Navigation away. Thank you.

AMANDA BICCLE, JBC STAFF, YOU HAVE A REDRAFT OF THE ACADEMIC ACCELERATOR REDUCTION. PER YOUR PREVIOUS, YOUR MOST RECENT REQUEST, IT'S A 5.2 MILLION REDUCTION TO THE PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD LEAVE 3.2 MILLION FOR THE FINAL YEAR, WHICH IS 26-27. So that's what you have.

It's not about this, and I don't want to divert us for too long, but I did hear from a parent of a kid who is planning to go to college on the TREP scholarship. And what she said was that now her kid can't go to college at all because we haven't allowed enough time for them to figure out an alternative to pay for it. that all the other avenues to pay for college for her kid are passed. And I just wonder, I know we're not talking about that right now, but it just seemed like she compared it to this. Maybe we can talk about it more offline. I mean, I think you had two different alternatives for doing the TREP bill, one of which was to give a longer lead time, right,

THE COMMITTEE WAS INTERESTED IN DOING IT MORE QUICKLY, SO THAT'S HOW THE BILL IS WRITTEN. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE DIFFERENT DECISIONS.

THE FULL, FULLY ELIMINATING THE PROGRAM IS LIKE 2.6 MILLION, So I think you get like 1.6 million savings in 26 right now as currently written. You get 1.6 million savings in 26-27, and then you get the full 2.6 in 27-28. I haven run it but I assume your savings would be more like a million or less in 26 if you decided to do the longer lead time But you know within the scope of challenges you dealing with that might feel manageable

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not quite sure what this parent is saying, but I can tell you from being on senior staff of a university, they're doing financial aid packages all through the summer, all the way up to pretty close to the first day of school. So to say that there's nothing more available is just not an accurate statement. They're bundling financial aid all summer long.

It funds at $3.2 million instead of completely eliminating it.

Move to introduce LLS 0887, Reduce Academic Accelerator Grant Program Appropriation.

Can someone remind me again why they need an additional 2.6 FTE when we're reducing the program? That's what it says on page 2.

That is based on assumption that we require an additional 2.6 FTE. Am I allowed to fill?

Senator Krookmeyer, you're not, but you'll note this is a 2324 appropriation.

Director Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Ms. Pope is checking something in the draft that she has second on the list. So if it's okay, we'll skip to Mr. Catlett.

Thank you, Madam Chair. John Catlett, JBC staff. So this is your MTCF balancing bill. It basically makes two changes to current law. The first is the change to the distribution of the special sales tax. Last year, you reduced that from 10% to 3.5%. This bill eliminates the 3.5% distribution to local governments and directs that to the marijuana tax cash fund. And the other significant change it makes is that at the end of the fiscal year if there is a balance above the 15 reserve requirement it will direct a transfer to the state public school fund of that balance in the event that that balance above the statutory reserve requirement exists. So it's contingent upon the fund having a balance in excess of the reserve requirement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to introduce LLS 0966, Marijuana Tax Cash Fund Distributions. Are there any objections?

Ms. Shen and Ms. Connick-Arash. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have for you a bill draft. I think it was discussed earlier this week about transferring some of the proposition EE money that goes to the Tobacco Education Program Fund and transferring that to the Preschool Programs Fund, which funds UPK, and then refinancing $10 million within the Department of Early Childhood as a result. We worked through some of the mechanics, and I think we settled on a transfer of June 30, 2027. In order to sort of try to minimize the impact on the department, I did talk with the department. There will be some impact to their grant program just because Proposition EE money comes in monthly, so it'll take them a little bit to recoup that money, but it's what we got.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to introduce LLS 0740 cash fund transfers to general funds. No. Nope. Wrong one. I turned too far. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to introduce 0 LLS 0980, transfer tobacco ed fund to preschool program fund. Are there any objections?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sam Rickman, Joint Budget Committee staff here with the updated UPTF bill according to what the committee discussed on Friday. In summary, it has...

Yeah, there was, thank you, Madam Chair, there was a bit of confusion on what date you all wanted to implement ending the adult dental transfer from the UPTF. we are in the bill draft Ms. Bietti had it as ending in 27-28 which was according to the advice of Mr. Kurtz in that there are some taper concerns with implementing it in 26-27 as well as some other mechanical concerns that Mr. Kurtz raised so for those reasons they wanted to have the start in 27-28. That was the large thing that was unclear about this bill.

Madam Chair, I think what we're saying is that we're going to eliminate all future sort of in legislation transfers out of UPTF that we will be taking funds this year, but it's the last sort of like automatic taking money from UPTF that's in the legislature. Like this year finishes automatic taking, and then we'll talk after the long bill about some sort of deeper dive into UPTF to make sure that we're not, you know, inappropriately taking all sorts of funds out of there that it's not a good idea to take out. Is that what you said, Mr. Rickman?

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it should be this year, 26-27, especially if we're going to take another 42 out this year. I don't think it's... 45. Yeah, 45. I think that especially given that we're expecting to hit the TABOR refund cap this year, that taking money out of UPTF that essentially just turns into refunds is possibly, is probably not the best way forward on this. But do you know more about that TABOR number issue that we had talked about?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Bridges, I think the concern is whether how far above the Tabor cap the state ends up being. Right now, LCS projects the state to be about 230 or so million above the Tabor cap. That's well within the margin of error. If it ends up being that the state is below the Tabor cap for 26, 27, then that would have a general fund impact. However, if they remain above the Tabor cap for that year, then it would not have a general fund impact.

And I see the vice chair doesn't like that idea. I also don't like that. Okay. Senator Gorkmeyer, you had your hand up?

Oh, Rep Taggart.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think if we take the 45 in this fiscal year and then we also take adult dental in 26-27, that's a double dip essentially in a single calendar year that I think is, number one, not good according to the Tabor limit that we'll be hitting, and number two, both of those in a single, it's essentially the same calendar year. Deeply uncomfortable with that. Sorry, Mr. Kurtz, I didn't mean to call you in like that. But just, you know, as we're talking about how to rectify the situation, I don't know if I misstated your thought. I only heard the start of your statement of it and then was in transit.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THAT'S A DOUBLE HIT TO UPTF OF A SIZABLE AMOUNT. HOW MUCH IS ADULT DENTAL FOR NEXT YEAR? Mr. Kurtz.

Mr. Kurtz.

Yes, yes, I know. can we get some of the thousands numbers into there so this is you have to care all the way down to the dollar what is that is to me that is

Okay. And as this is a bill, it's a bill. We need everyone's agreement.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Okay, I missed the last part about what's the redirect?

Thank you, Madam Chair. What's the redirect? Because we funded adult dental out of there for 25-26, so that was basically $68 million. And we're going to take another $45 million out this year. to help fund for next year adult dental, or was it for something else? What's the $45 million that we're taking out this year on the last day of the year, fiscal year?

Just to put directly into the general fund? Yeah.

And the $30 million, well, the $30 million from the housing transfer that we are stopping, We are diverting $28 million to the general fund. Senator Kirkmeyer. But it's 30 total out of UPCF. And so how are we anticipating that we are going to pay for the dental care, the $68 million next year? We're just ending it?

In fiscal year 26-27, my understanding of this bill is that the source of funds would shift from the adult dental fund or unclaimed property trust fund to just being a general fund appropriation. So you're still funding it. You're just funding it from a different source. Which in a table refund position is just refunding it. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So next year we're going to find $68 million of additional general fund money for adult dental care.

And there will be some federal dollars. You're going to find it from a decrease in the general fund obligation for a TABOR refund because we won't be pulling any money out of the unclaimed property trust fund that will be hitting the state's TABOR cap. Yeah.

Senator Kirkmeyer. So taking money from specific individuals to disperse to all individuals in the state is not a good idea. Is that what you just said? Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that's what you just said. In fact, I am writing it down, taking money from specific individuals. You know, like individuals who have got their money stored, their tax dollars, whatever, they're not getting. Unclaimed property taxes. From specific, yeah, I'm writing it down so I can use it on the floor.

Madam Chair, that's correct. Okay.

Rep Taggart. Too specific in the video. There's so much give and take going on here. I just, Madam Chair. Yes, please. Is this an additional $68 million that we're now saying is going to be a part of the long bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Because of the interactions with Tabor, I think the only real impact of the shift back and forth is the reserve requirement. About $9 million? Yep. I mean, because if you pull it in from UPTF and we're above the cap, it's pushing the general fund out as a table refund. If you don't pull it in from the UPTF and you pay it out of the general fund, then you're spending the general fund instead of it going out as the refund. the only change for your purposes on the budget, staying well clear of the other debate, is the reserve requirement that you would have to hold on the general fund appropriation and not on the adult dental fund appropriation. Mr. Rickman. Thank you, Madam Chair. So if I understand you correctly, I will ask LLS to amend this bill to make the effective date of changing the fund source for the adult dental fund to July 1st, 2026. Yes, that is what I heard the vice chair request. Senator Mobley.

We have to come up with an additional $9 million, but it doesn't change anything else.

I think it's fine.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not need to see it, and I move to introduce LLS 0. 897 transfers from unclaimed property trust fund. Are there any objections?

Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that, um, yeah, obviously as amended as we discussed without needing to see it again. Yes. Is that clear to everyone?

Is this Pierce part of the process? It's because this is the, we just don't put sponsors on when we do this? That's fine. No, no. Who did we name before? That's fine. If we keep it the way I named it, then what happens? Okay. There we go. Very complicated draft. Okay. Who? First base. Okay. Yeah.

So you like at less than a THIRD GREAT THANK YOU ALL RIGHT THANK YOU DOES THAT MEAN OH REP TAGGERT

I'm apologizing to you, Rep. Taggart. I didn't catch what the thought was. I was answering another question. About?

Okay. Well, I don't think it sounds like we're ready to make a choice on controlled maintenance or capital just yet. So those are the numbers on the table. Thank you, Ms. Ewell.

Ms. Shedd.

Okay. So everybody perusing?

I should. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think so, so that there's a small amount from we had that conversation during the conversation with military and veterans affairs about taking some of the tobacco money that's included in here. And then the only other thing is we had that conversation about DNR's portion of severance tax, and those numbers are all updated in here. So the updated numbers are on packet page 25 if you want to see like how it was split out. But it ends up being a total transfer from all the severance tax sources of $83.6 million.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Yeah. So the severance tax from the perpetual base fund, when did that come in? Because I don't recall that we were ever talking about money coming. We weren't talking about money coming from the perpetual fund. Ms. Shudd. Thank you, Madam Chair. So it was part of the sort of OSPB's original request was basically the severance tax transfers would come from four sources, which would be, well, two in DOLA, and then which will be just actually the grants in DOLA. And then on the DNR side they had proposed basically half and half between the operational fund and perpetual base fund You can certainly Yes The 50 million that we approved on Friday Yep, so that about 50, it came out to 47 million, was split between... Well, split between the DOLA portion, but then the DNR portion was split between the severance tax perpetual base and the operational fund. And then same for the DNR's original request is split between operational and perpetual base. All right, well, my apologies. I guess I did not understand that we were taking it out of the perpetual account, and I'm not in support of that because that truly is water funding. It's not the water plan. It's actually the water project list. That's truly what funds the water list, whereas the operational account is not. But my understanding with what we were doing was we were sweeping what wasn't going to impact sort of what was already the proposal for expenditures. Is that wrong? So the proposed basically additional incremental sweep was the difference between the March forecast and the September forecast. So theoretically, so in September or in November when the department submitted their request, there was some amount coming from the severance tax perpetual base fund, but the idea behind that was that there wouldn't be technically an additional amount greater than expected coming from the severance tax perpetual base fund since, in theory, if you operated just off the September forecast, that's like what the state of the fund would be. So if you had budgeted to the September forecast, that theoretically shouldn't be changed. Senator Kirchmeier. But if we were actually following the way the formula works and the spillover works, any additional dollars that go into the operational account that weren't being spent on those other things, those other programs there, would have flowed into the perpetual account, which would have flowed into more water projects. Ms. Shen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirchmeier, that's right. I think there's some information in there about the, there isn't a spillover, I guess, is what DNR was projecting. So because of sort of the lower than expected severance tax revenue coming in. Senator Kirkmeyer. That is not what is in the forecast for OSPB about lower severance taxes coming in. In fact, they're increasing in this year from OSPB's numbers. So I guess I'm having a tough time understanding that. But I'm having more of a tough time understanding when we talked about not impacting water projects, and yet here we are. So I'm not in support of it, of taking the 7.25. I thought the $50 million sweep was essentially because of a lot of that had to do with the increase in the perpetual account, or in the operational account, I'm sorry. And I apologize, I guess I was wrong. I'm looking at the severance tax, well the distribution forecast. at the yeah the the severance tax revenue does well the total from everything oil and gas coal metals and then the interest it does it doesn't go down that substantially go down by about 3 million bucks in 26 27 so again And another reason why I wouldn't be willing to cut from the perpetual account. I didn't understand that we were doing that. I thought last year when we talked about not taking from the perpetual account was coming through this year, and apparently it's not.

That's right, Madam Chair. So I can take out the severance tax perpetual base fund amount. That would be $7.2 million in 25-26, and then $11.2 in 26-27.

Rep. Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Shin, I thought I heard you say something, and I haven't had a chance to read the bill, obviously, but that we were also transferring money from a veterans. I hope that's not the case.

Okay. Okay. All right. So we're not ready for that either. And there was one we skipped.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MS. SHEN. THANK YOU, MS. YUL. DIRECTOR HARPER, ARE WE READY FOR MS. POPE'S BILL or we need more time on that.

that are most accessible. Okay. I don't have any of those in front of me. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT NUMBERS THEY ARE.

WHICH ONES WERE THEY? I'M SORRY.

LET'S SEE. Okay, so there was a packet from Monday, March 16th, which had social studies in it, as well as, I don't think it has a P3 bill in it. Social studies is on page 9. Which pack? Is it in our... Packet 5.

This one, on page 5. Yep.

It's not a tab. I don't know.

I know Ms. Bova has copies of the P3 bill available right now.

Is the bill in there? You found it? Did you find it?

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. This bill will start in the House and run with the long bill. I see Rep. Brown is eager to make this reduction. So he will sponsor and Rep. Taggart and in the Senate, Senator Bridges and Amable. And Sirota and Kirkmeyer will co-sponsor. I know. Thank you, Ms. Bickle. Okay. There is another bill that we looked at for a minute on Friday. I don't know where it is anymore. And it had to do with the P3 office, and nobody could come to any consensus on what we should and shouldn't do in that bill. The bill had a few changes. to the P3 office to put in some more transparency and reporting and also swept $1.2 million or so. The administration did a comeback on that and they wanted us to, oh, and the bill also changes it from continuous appropriation to continuous spending authority to an annual appropriation. The comeback is for us to actually maintain their continuous spending authority to create a board for more transparency and oversight. And what was the third thing? Reverse the 1.2 million. Oh, yeah, reverse the transfer. Oh, thanks. So, but I didn't sense a lot of consensus from the group for any of those options.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. In conversations with the Gov's team, I'm convinced that the continuous appropriation is really critical for this office, that decisions need to be made rapidly. I said this last time we talked about this bill, this hasn't changed, that this needs to be a group that can move quickly, but also that cannot move towards things like the bridge. And so I am comfortable maintaining the continuous appropriation with the creation of some sort of oversight, not necessarily the like governor appointee, DPA, whatever this thing is here, but some sort of oversight that will give us, at the very least, more rapid notification of what it is they're trying to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Is it instead of the Oversight Board? Yes.

I think I was thinking of maintaining continuous appropriations but requiring some sort of notice and then maybe that we would have some sort of ability to step in if it were something like the bridge that we were, we thought was a boondoggle, if you will. But I don't think we, I mean, do we have the ability, if they have continuous spending authority, then we don't, I mean, we could tell them we wouldn't like that. But Senator Kirkmeyer.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it was the idea to have the board, that the board would have to approve any of those We have a CDC. quote-unquote stupid things, and then any movement beyond that, right? Once they have established there is some building that they can do, then that comes to the CDC. So all projects require approval of the board prior to presentation to CDC so that the board says, yes, go get the information. They go get the information, they bring that information back, present to the CDC with the plan for what they want to do. So the board would have to have said, yeah, go find the information about the bridge, and then the bridge gets presented to the CDC. So it puts in one more check into that. It puts a check into that process because the CDC is already there to approve or disapprove the project.

Ms. Bova.

Director Harper, you had a...

I mean, you could. Or not.

Well, that's a good question, and I don't know where everyone is on that. Rep Taggart, and my understanding, if we wanted to do the transfer, it doesn't have to live in this bill, does it?

Okay. Rep Taggart.

Well, I would agree. Here are the things that I will say about this, though. We should decide on the transfer. If we want to put that in the transfer bill, then we can. But I do think that the things that are in this bill are important, and I actually think that some board oversight would be useful. And like I said last week, maybe the folks who are named in the bill are, or in the comeback are not quite appropriate. I will also say, though, and I know that this can wait, but I don't know how long it can wait. I don't want to do it on a 30-day clock if we are going to do a bill. But I also actually have some concerns. I feel, I think, just as frustrated as the rest of the committee about the behavior of the P3 office and some of the poor choices made and state dollars wasted. And that is very frustrating. I don't know if it's something we should or shouldn't believe, but they are saying that if we sweep this 1.2 million, is it, that that will impact projects that they have in the works. Can you confirm, Ms. Bova, because I feel like you sort of said, no, that's not really quite right. Do you think that if we swept that $1.2 million, that the child care and housing projects that they had talked about would actually falter?

Well, how does everyone feel about the transfer? Okay. Okay, let's take the transfer. Vice Chair Bridges.

Well, here's the thing. I don't want to hold up our ability to close the budget on this. But I also, I don't want to delay a bill very long. if we were going to do one. Is it, I guess, a transfer that we could... Just put in the transfer bill. Are you okay? Well, if we do it. Are you okay with it?

It seems like, though, in the end, what we're saying is we don't want to do a transfer in this bill. If we do the transfer, if we sweep those funds, we would do it in the transfer bill. So, Rep Taggart.

Do you want to not do it? The water's over that day.

We'll say yes or no, and we'll put in the transfer bill if we say yes. All right. So hold on to the bill. We have a bill. We'll move on. Is there any other legislation that we have available to take up?

Okay. Rep. Brown, you have a bill shortly, yes?

Is your bill happening right now? I think they have one bill that they are working on before us. It was supposed to be short, so hopefully it will start soon. Anything else? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since we're talking about Representative Brown's legislation, we may as well keep talking about Representative Brown's legislation. I know that we've talked a lot about a placeholder for the work you're doing on autism providers. That's right.

This was partially a budget request, but you are working on something that is sort of taking a slightly expanded or different approach, actually, based on provider and feedback.

Senator Kirkman.

Brett Brown. How many FTE are we talking? I can't tell you about the number of FTE, but I can tell you that the – When you analyze sort of this is a de novo kind of licensure framework, right? and that when you set up a new framework for licensing professionals as well as facilities, it costs about $2.5 million for the professional side and about $2.5 million for the other side. So that's where the $5 million is coming from.

That is true. I mean, I will say that it is not a, it is a, you know, it is a policy that we are working on actively. And so we know that licensure takes resources, and so this is reflective of what I believe is a mid-level estimate. Vice Chair Bridges.

Would you like to make the motion record?

What are you saying we've seen costs skyrocket from? I MEAN, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE OIG AUDIT THAT WAS DONE OF THE ABA? I THINK THAT'S A SEPARATE BILL THAT WE CAN TAKE UP SHORTLY. BUT IT'S WHAT'S I THINK DRIVING THE LICENSURE BILL. I THINK IT'S... AM I INCORRECT OR... It'S A COMBINATION OF YES, WE HAVE SEEN THE OIG AUDIT OBVIOUSLY IT WAS PRETTY SCATHING. I will also say that there are reports of, you know, providers billing for kids sleeping. There are reports of people, you know, there have been court cases that have been fought over this, about whether, you know, providers are doing things that are appropriate. So this is about, first and foremost, I would say this is about making sure that kids are safe. It is also about making sure that we have checks in place to make sure that the billing is appropriate and that we know who's billing us and that they are providing appropriate and high-level quality care and then that we are maintaining that access as well.

Well, I don't want to speak for Rep. Brown, but I think to be fair, maybe Rep. Brown is working on some things that I'm not necessarily sure the department is or the administration is necessarily wanting to do, but in fact providers and the disability community are asking to have included here. And so I think, you know, for our purposes today, we're considering a placeholder, and I would truly hope that, you know, that this could be worked out and wouldn't necessarily take $5 million. But I do, if we want to do the right thing to keep kids safe and to actually be fair to our providers so that, you know, we're actually doing some of the things that they are asking to, those providers who are doing the right thing, who are utilizing trained staff and the like, that we are actually able to do that. And I think my understanding is this is the approach that other states are taking, not the one that our state has taken in the past. And so I would like to approve this placeholder so that we are able to give the bill sponsors the space to be able to work through policy, which ultimately is a policy decision that every one of us and the rest of our colleagues can make a decision on when the bill comes forward and work through those policy questions. but I just I want to ensure that we're able to do the right thing if it's presented to us to keep kids safe in the end.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I have, I'm all in for saying let's set this marker and put this set aside in, and then trusting you to go back and fight with folks to bring the number down to something more reasonable. Or we'll do it in Senate appropriation. Right I do appreciate your work on this and I look forward to seeing the bill Thank you I was just going to say to both of you I very much appreciate your sentiments

Again, I'm fine with putting a placeholder. But I'm going to continue to say on programs like this where we, one of the foundations in addition, obviously protecting kids is the most important element. But when they're saying there's misuse and abuse, from a code standpoint, they need to put a stake in the ground and give us an offset. because if $5 million saves us $10 million or $15 million in overpayments on Medicaid, I'm all ears. I don't know what the number would be. I just throw that out. But I just worry. It's not in their vocabulary today. It's usually strictly the cost side and you guys figure it out as to what it, what the offset might be. And I just don't think that's the way they should be operating.

Sure. Yes, thank you. I move that we set aside $5 million for ABA, a future ABA licensure legislation to be considered by the General Assembly later this session.

Well, we're going to get it done. So thanks for your support.

MY POINT IS, AS WE DISCUSSED A LITTLE ON FRIDAY, I DO THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO DO A ONE-TIME DIVERSION OF STATE LAND BOARD REVENUE SO THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING IT GO TO THE PERMANENT FUND, YOU WILL HAVE IT GO TO THE STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL FUND, AND THERE YOU WILL REFINANCE general fund. I've got lots of information here for you with background on these different funds. I think for the state, as we discussed a little on Friday, you've got this state trust for public lands, which dates to the founding of the state and money that was given to the state by the federal government. You've got two parts to it. You've got the part that is liquid, which is the permanent fund, and then you've got the state lands that are managed by the state land board. And right now, you've got a quite complicated collection of fund movements. I've given you on page two and three something that shows the last three years of revenue. I would say for just to give you highlights here on page two, permanent fund balance was $1.8 billion at the end of 25. During that year, it received $114.6 million in state land board revenue. I'd expect something along those lines, around $100 million this year. It also had significant unrealized capital gains, so it went up quite a bit, but not all of that got distributed. The only amount from the permanent fund, the cash fund part, that was distributed was $53 million last year. But the Department of Education overall last year received over almost million Under the current structure pretty much all of that goes to BEST and then there a spillover when BEST revenue gets above million to the state public school funds State public school funds support school operations, public school finance, and BEST supports capital construction of schools. IF THAT WAS AS CLEAR AS MUD, THERE'S ALSO A GRAPHIC ON PAGE 4 THAT TRIES TO SHOW THIS THING GRAPHICALLY. YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. IT WAS PART OF MY BRIEFING. SO IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 4, YOU'LL SEE YOU HAVE STATE LAND BOARD REVENUE. THAT'S DIVIDED BETWEEN THE PERMANENT FUND AND THE BEST FUND. The permanent fund then also gives extra, its earnings over to the, over to Best. Some of Best revenue goes to the charter school facilities assistance account. It's a complicated collection, but what we're talking about right now, looking on page four, is that money on that top arrow where you have state land board revenue that goes directly to the permanent fund. And what we're talking about is diverting some of that revenue, $70 million, so that it goes instead directly to that state public school fund, which is in the bottom right corner. And you would then use that state public school fund to refinance general fund. Did that help at all? We would do it once. You do at one time, and you can pick your number. At the moment, as I said, we're looking at revenue that is about $100 million a year. I've included for background for you on page 5 the excerpts from the state constitution about the public lands and the permanent fund and the restrictions there, and I've also included information that I've given you. before about the best program and also about the Charger School Facilities Assistance Account because you had some discussion about whether you were going to use a mechanism that would have taken money from those programs. But this mechanism will not take any money from those programs. kind of taking away from the long-term growth in the permanent fund. No, this was, yeah. Questions?

And so, and we would do this $70 million by diverting $25 million in the current fiscal year and then $45 million in the next year? Senator, that was my original suggestion. I've talked to State Land Board and the Treasury. That's an option to do it that way, or you could do it all in 26, 27. Either way would work.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If we do it in 25, though, then we incur an extra $9 million in cost in 2627 for reserves, right?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess then as we don't have a draft, but as contemplated, this would be, would this trigger that $9 million extra reserve cost, or as contemplated here, do we not have to worry about that?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I like doing that. I think that the transfer being 25, 26, the actual transfer being 25, 26 is the right thing here to make it very clear. This is a one-time thing we're doing for emergency reasons. And, like, this is not, I mean, in as much as we can put in, like, a ledge deck or whatever about this, not, like, this is not a standard practice sort of thing. This is not how we're going to pay for things moving forward. This is essentially in order to not cut other things by $70 million. So I think I'm good with that as a particular change.

I'm just trying to make sure that we don't have to have $9 million.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm comfortable with all of that. I move JBC staff come back in additional information, education from Amanda Bickle, best charter school permanent fund, $70 million options. with the change to FY 2627 in the second bullet as outlined in our conversation.

Because the first bullet says 25 million in 2526 and 45 in 2627. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you,

All right. Are there any objections that passes out of over to six to zero? Thank you. Ms. Bickle.

But, yes, Ms. Bova.

Ms. Bova.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I saw a sort of like shrug it's fine either way from the person who would know best on this. So go ahead and do 25.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would also say that I think it's important that we as a committee pass that bill before the 30-day clock so that we have a chance to express our views. Should the governor disagree?

That's great. MR. THOMSON.

I MOVE JBC STAFF COME BACK FROM MR. SCOTT PHILIP THOMPSON. DATE MARCH 30TH, LEGAL SERVICES COMMON POLICY. WITH THE ABILITY TO CHANGE, MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT COMING BACK.

All right. Sounds great. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Vacancy?

Thank you.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Are we going to see one of these for everybody? Or is this?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move JVC staff come back Office of Information Technology from Andrew, some middle name, McLear. Maybe he doesn't have one. Possible. Are there any objections?

Madam Chair, somewhat unfortunately, the next couple things on our list are both Mr. Kim, and I think he's slamming away and will be in shortly. So if it's okay, we may jump to severance. Or we've also got this disaster emergency fund changes.

All right. Ms. Curry will be right in. I thought we agreed on that. She's got something to come back for.

Where's that at? It should be somewhere in front of you. Ms. Post has something, too. Oh, is that Mr. Kim's here?

Let's go with Mr. Kim.

calculated adjustments that are basically in line with what figures that were shared with the committee for balancing purposes from DPA, OSPB. I have asked them to generate these numbers. I prefer to do my own numbers, but at this late time I'm asking them to generate those. There was a significant difference from my calculations, and this is based on my lack of familiarity with the template based on the step system. So when you move into a salary range adjustment of zero into the next year, apparently that adjusts this year's step increases. The methodology on that I don understand but that is a part of it and that was a difference in my calculations versus theirs So we looking at achieving the savings I think that the committee was aware of that had been made aware of And I am requesting from the committee to allow me to make these adjustments and allow staff to make these adjustments related to these step and step-like based on the figures that I would get from DPA.

So the bottom line is still $56 million cut or reduction or lack of an increase. The question is, what is the amount of step like?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I currently without including the judicial agencies which have their own complexities, just the other agencies were reduced from about $26.8 million and the STEP increased to about $10 million. So that's a savings of $16 just on STEP. and then step-like at a .6% average rather than the 1.2 that I had calculated will be some additional savings. I don't know what these final numbers will look like right now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kim, you just threw a little bit of curveball here. when you said that judicial, did I hear it wasn't a part of that? What should I assume they will be at some point? Because I don't think it's fair to have one branch of the government be doing its own thing. That's not fair to other employees.

So, Rep. Tager, let me clarify. I was trying to run the numbers so that we could understand my numbers versus the DPA OSPB numbers and why there was a difference. I ran my numbers based on template adjustments for all of the departments except for the judicial branch because there are so many of those agencies in there. And they have their own unique step plan, both judicial, the courts and probation, as well as the public defender. So once you get into those, it just takes additional working those adjustments to come up with the numbers. What I was trying to do was get roughly to the same numbers that they were reflecting, that DPA OSPB was reflecting. So this is not a reflection of leaving judicial out of it. Judicial will be included in these adjustments. I'm waiting for all of those numbers to come in from DPA OSPB so that we can get these numbers moving for the committee. Otherwise, it would take me another two to three hours to generate the same numbers.

So two questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, can you tell us the numbers again, the difference numbers again, and then why does Judicial have a different step plan?

So, Senator Kirkmire, there are no classified employees, therefore there are no covered employees in the entire judicial branch. But when the step plan was being implemented, the courts in probation established an equivalent step plan and the public defender office established an equivalent step plan They represent if I remembering right about 5 FTE across both of those So it's significant. But theirs was always intended to be basically in line with adjustments in the executive branch, but they do theirs just a little different. I don't have those numbers difference. What I was calculating based on where I started from, I was showing about 26.8 million total step adjustments. This is total funds. This is total step adjustments for all other agencies except judicial. When I ran it at the 0% salary range adjustment, that was reduced to right around $10 million. So the savings of about 60% to 70% for that little policy piece. I've never experienced a salary range adjustment that's intended for the future affect the current year or the budget year. And in this case, this does.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move JVC staff come back statewide compensation from Alfredo Chem, step pay and step like. Are there any objections?

Thank you.

Yep.

I DON'T HAVE MY HIGHER ED FOLDER WITH ME.

YEAH, I CAN RUN BACK.

A-HA.

Hi there, Michelle Curry, Joint Budget Committee staff. This is just an update to an already approved for introduction bill draft. The drafter identified that a potential issue with having the petition clause, so this is the DEF reporting changes. One of the mechanisms in it limits the unencumbered balance of the disaster emergency fund to $200 million. So in the event that it exceeds that unencumbered balance, then money would be transferred to the general fund. In the previous bill draft, it had the first of those transfers happening on July 1st. That does not work with the petition clause. So in order to not have to switch the clause, it just makes it so that the first time that that transfer would happen would happen in August instead, to be able to leave that clause in there. That transfer is unlikely to happen this year, but it's just ensuring that the dates all line up accurately.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to adopt staff recommendations adjustments, adjustment to OLS 0912 disaster emergency fund changes. Are there any objections?

Thanks.

Three. Yours is off by one. Three.

13 behind tab 3.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS AT THE TOP OF PAGE 14, EXCEPT WITH A 5% OUT-OF-STATE TUITION INCREASE AND A 5% ALLOWABLE INCREASE FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES.

What we discussed was just the 5% across everything, 5%. The schools are saying they're not going to take advantage of the 5% in in-state, but to have it consistently five in-state, out-of-state, and community colleges. So it's five across the board.

Wait, hold on. Yeah. Wait, hold on.

All motions withdrawn.

We're not there yet.

Yeah. We have to do one thing at a time.

Well in terms of balancing but not policy Vacancy savings

I thought it was five across the other day.

Yes.

There's a separate note for community colleges.

Senator Mobley. Yeah. Could we do four? I'm okay with four, provided that the 11 million come in from the financial aid side of things.

Rep Taggart. Yeah. I think we have to trust our institutions as we're trusting the community college. We have to trust our institutions that they know, A, what's best for our Colorado residents and know what the market will bear. This just gives them a range. And I agree the compensation helped them. But we literally haven't put a dime into higher education. Even if we bring over the financial aid, it is just flat from last year. So I trust the institution presidents will make the right decisions. So if inflation is 2.4 percent and we would be giving them 3 and 5 and no cut at all, then that's maybe 50 million. We haven't given them the 2.4 percent.

We gave them zero. Even if we bring the 11, we gave them zero. So if we going to talk about 2 I be happy to keep it at three if you want to add 2 to them but we haven done that Well I think actually what we about to do is to do that is to give them an increase You can call it what you want, but it would be an increase from what they were at in 25-26. No, it's not, because under the special order, the governor took the $11 million away. And now we're talking about restoring. Just restoring it. That only gets it to zero. That's not an increase. That just gets it to zero. From where they're at now. It's still zero. It's not an increase. I just think we have to trust. We have very good people running these institutions. We should trust them to make the right decisions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Can we go to Senator Kirkmeyer?

Okay.

So Senator Mobley.

I think everybody seems happy at 4%. I don't think everyone is. No one seems happy at 4%. But I'm going to negotiate. All right.

I don't know that we'll be in a good place. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff recommendation except at 4% in-state, 5% out-of-state, and 5% for communities.

Thank you, Madam Chair. at present between our nonprofit private institutions and our proprietary institutions, we have been allocating just right around $14 million a year in financial aid. Not to be confused with COF. This is not COF. That's a totally separate bucket. And I would recommend that we take million of that and put it towards our public institutions to help our students that attend private institutions to in fact keep that tuition down So my proposal would be to take 11 million from the nonprofit private institutions and proprietary institutions of their total 14 million. And it's 14 million, Mr. Kim, and some change. I just I don't have the absolute detail. I mean, I have the details that you, I'm assuming this came from you, but I didn't add it up to the 10th. I think it was from Ms. Bickle, and I don't know if it was from what was the last year's proposal.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I have some updated figures. Need-based grants total about $12.7 million. Work-study about $1.5 million. Total $14.2 million.

Mr. Kemp.

Do you have to do it in statute?

I would prefer it be a footnote and not be a bill. But what I also think is that this should be an ongoing reduction given that what the increase we just made to the institutions is an ongoing general fund cost to the state. And so if we're going to have an ongoing cost, I think we need an ongoing reduction. Can we make that happen without changing statute?

Madam Chair, the committee can absolutely do that, and I will write up a footnote that addresses this specific budget action with the intention that it is a base reduction.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. All right. Vice Chair Bridges.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. That is basically right. I will clarify.

Sometimes this is spoken of as a base reduction, but it's actually not.

Oh, are you including within, would you be including within that 24-7 facilities or lines with 20 or fewer FTEs, Mr. Kim?

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not comfortable taking it from the 24-7. That's exactly the place where I think we should not be taking these vacancy savings, given everything.

But they are the departments with 24-7 staff predominantly.

I THINK IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES THEY CAN FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY MUCH JUST FOR THE FORT I WANT TO SAY LIONS BUT IS IT LOGAN? WHICH ONE IS IT? BUT IT'S JUST FOR THAT ONE AREA. SO I THINK IT'S RIGHT, ISN'T IT? HUMAN SERVICES PROBABLY LOVE TO YEAH THE INSTITUTION ONE SO I THINK IT PRETTY EASY FOR THEM TO FIGURE OUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS PROBABLY JUST EXEMPTED AND YOUR OTHER ONE IS THE PROBLEM Human Services probably loved him Yeah the institution ones I think it pretty easy for them to figure out Department of Corrections is probably just exempted And your other one was

But they're all not 24-7. Not all, but State Patrol.

That should be, I think, we figured it out last year, and it seems to me that's who it was.

So, yeah, I mean, if you'd like to exempt certain divisions.

Well, I guess I'm confused.

It actually has nothing to do with vacancies.

Senator Mobley? Yeah, I mean, are they using their vacancy savings to pay overtime? Is that part of what, so?

Vice Chair Bridges? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm hoping the departments, we just said 24-7, that the departments could get, if not a list of the employees, at least a list of all of the various different pieces of the agencies in which that applies over to you like lickety-split. So I'm seeing so many vigorous head nods behind you on that. So I'm uncomfortable taking away from the 24-7, and I think that they'll get you that information very fast. So in whatever form it is that is easiest to process that, whether that's just saying like nursing homes, you know, in various different subdivisions of these places, or if it's actually identifying the employees and what that would be. I would prefer to have the 1.5% vacancy savings recognized without, and just saying without the 24-7, because also if we just sit here and try and think of them all, I'm sure we'll forget some. So I think with all of that caveat that what my motion is Exempting the 24 parts that will and a list will be given sent over to make sure that we are properly captured

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't disagree. I'm just trying to figure out what's, does that mean a change in the $13 million, or I'm not quite sure what that means.

You don't think so?

Okay. All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0.

you mr ken thank you severance let's talk severance

I need to check it off. We have some of that done.

We have had some further discussions about some of the proposals put forward on Friday. I don't know even when we talked about this last.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. If the overlap between the perpetual and CWC is 100%, then no. They're managed together, I think. So just the amount. They're managed together. CWCB currently funds staff and projects, whereas the perpetual-based fund mostly just funds projects. But they're managed together. Thank you, Madam Chair. The perpetual-based fund, up to $3 million. Okay.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. The soil conservation originally had been $400,000 in ag management, moving 400,000 into ag management, and then allowing up to 300,000 to still come from operational. all.

I THINK DRAFTING WOULD REQUIRE A BILL IS MY ASSUMPTION. OR NO? MS. SHEN? IT WILL REQUIRE A BILL. MS. SHEN? I THINK IT MAY REQUIRE A BILL, BUT THE LANGUAGE IN STATUTE CURRENTLY SAYS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY APPROPRIATE UP TO, SO, LIKE UP TO X PERCENT FOR ALL THESE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. SO I WOULD NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT, I think some of the projects like to confirm they're like allowable uses for these other cash funds but I think other than that the subtax operational fund statute currently says you can appropriate up to X amount.

I don't think it's as easy as doing a transfer to the general fund because they're all not going to the general fund. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so let's not put it in the transfer fund then, the transfer bill. We'll keep all of this in its own bill. And permanently refinance CWCB generally funded FTE from the construction fund and combine with intrastate water management and development line item and rename to water conservation development and management. We'll send you that. Sure. Did you get that all? I think so, for the most part, minus that very last piece, but I'll listen to that. I think, yeah, with the addition of those last pieces, you'll definitely need a bill of some kind. Yeah, probably so. Send to draft? Yeah, move to send to draft. Vice Chair Bridges? Move to send to draft, all the things we just talked about.

Can we take a quick second? We're going to stand and recess for a quick second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For a conversation that we as a committee had earlier this year with Mr. Lively regarding the Tabor over refund, we believe that there is solid legal footing that is imminently forthcoming from the governor's office per conversations that are privileged with the AG, that indicate that this is an appropriate use of that over-refund provision. And so I move that the budget reflect a $153 million recognition of a bill that will be run with the long bill, but not by this committee, regarding the TABOR over-refund proposal.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have also been working on this budget the entire time attempting to get to balance with the understanding that we are working towards a 13 reserve not a 15 reserve that does require legislation And so I move that we draft legislation to reduce the reserve amount to 13% unless that fits into legislation that we have already know it does not. So move to draft.

Thank you. A couple questions. One is, I would have hoped we could hold that until we get through Medicaid. Okay. So my second question is, as a part of that draft, I think it's very important we spell out a preliminary schedule of when we think we can get back to 15% and in what increments we could do that. To put it in different terms, I can't sound signed off on a 13% for perpetuity.

Mr. Lively, your brow is furrowed.

Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'm just puzzled why the ledge deck. If we want to do that, why not put that in the bill itself? Because the ledge deck just goes away, and nobody sees our intention in the ledge deck. A statutory ledge deck can also be done. Okay, I'm not familiar with that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Teggart, I think what the Chair is indicating is there are two types of legislative declarations. One is non-statutory. That appears on the bill and then does not go in the red books. It just goes in the session laws. So to your point, it can be rather difficult to find. A statutory legislative declaration is one that appears in statute. so it's as easy to find a statute. It would be possible to amend the section that includes the reserve and include some sort of statutory legislative declaration establishing the General Assembly's intent to raise the reserve back up to or beyond 15%.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not exactly okay with that approach. If we're going to do this and it's 13% in 25-26, it can be 13% in 26-27, but it needs to go back up to 15 in 27-28. And if we have to come back and do another statute, then we come back and do another statute change.

Mr. Lively. Thank you, Madam Chair. We can absolutely do that. It would be 13% for two years, and then it would be 15% ongoing after the third.

Just me. I think we all are. I don't think so. Stragglers, stragglers. I think there's probably a couple of technicals in process, but I don't think they're worth having you stay for tonight. All right.

. . Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you All right

Thank you, Madam Chair. We forgot to move line item detail and base appropriation staff recommendation for higher education, so I move that. Divisions. And? District colleges. District colleges. Division five governing boards. Division five governing boards and local district colleges and AHEC common policy adjustments. I think we did that one. No, I was pointing to this. Division six. Division 5 and 6. Light item detail. Base appropriation. Division 5 and 6.

Thank you Thank you. Thank you.