Senate Finance [Mar 12, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Senator Sprite.

Excused? Excused? Here.

Yep. Present. Here. Here. Madam Chair. Here. We have Senate Bill 135 ahead of us. Who would like to start? Senator Bridges.

Thank you. Senator Kipp.

Senator Snyder, question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill sponsors. Senator Kipp, you said we're still $4,000 short of what we need. I know we've increased per-people funding in my time from around $8,000 to over $13,000. Are you saying we're still short that much even with the recent increases? Senator Kipp.

Senator Bridges.

We have some questions, so let's see if we get there. Senator Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, yeah, you can help me in that space. One more broader question, though. So if I remember in the bill, this just has a 10-year impact, and why did we limit it to 10 years? I guess what was the thought process behind that? Yes. Senator Ridges.

Senator Kemp?

Senator Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And then maybe from a high level, just help me understand the mechanics. And, like, I know there's reference in here, but I don't completely understand the mechanics of how do you, how does the bill interact with the affordable housing and the earned income tax credit? and the family affordability tax credit. Senator Bridges.

Senator Simpson? Yeah, just to follow up on that. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, again, the mechanics are that those existing funding mechanisms are protected or are a first priority versus the excess, the piece we're trying to capture for K-12. I'm trying to figure out what that interaction is. Senator Bridges.

Ms. Rudebush, Senator Frizzell and Senator Gonzalez are here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a REFC-style increase to that TABOR rationing limit, yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The enactment clause for this, the easiest way to explain this is page 13, which is what it is that folks will vote on on the ballot. It is an increase. So this increase in public K-12 education, as outlined here, which again we're going to be working on increasing the size of, is paid for without raising taxes, but funded by raising the annual limit on state fiscal year spending only by the amount the state spends on public K-12 education. So it is asking the voters, may we increase that rationing limit by what it is that we spend on K-12 education. So it is not a permanent removal of that rationing limit. It is simply essentially saying that K-12, we're increasing by K-12.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So as we define K-12 in this, the general fund piece, what we invest as part of state share in K-12 includes dollars that come from the state education fund that was created in Amendment 23 that is already exempt from that revenue limit. And so we very explicitly only include in this, by definition, the funds that are in the general fund. So by definition, this would be the state share of total program, categoricals, and then these new funds as well, the positive factor is included in that calculation. So as of right now, that dollar amount from the general fund is about $4.5 billion.

Senator Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one more thing to add to that. We did not include, there's tons of money in grant programs and various different dollars that we use for admin at the Department of Education. All of that is not included. We're really specifically only including dollars that go directly to schools in this state through that sort of, the total program and categoricals.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really appreciate this question because it goes to a question that we have had from other folks about why don't you just put this into total program? and the answer is that we don't get to direct total program dollars because of all the things you just said they get mixed with local funds and they are therefore that even though it's a state backfill and it's state dollars because it's mixed in we don't get to direct where those dollars go that's why we have this positive factor sitting where we do and not involved in total program because it allows us to if you go to page seven the top of page seven we outline that the positive factor funding is available to a district to fund increasing teacher pay, improving teacher retention, lowering class sizes, and increasing access to career and technical courses. We are able to do that because we keep these funds discrete from that total program and we have an audit in here that we will be expanding to include reporting from districts on how they're using these dollars to ensure that these dollars are actually going towards those uses. So it is set, but we will have transparency and we will have direction to districts that they are to use these dollars in that way. In the same way that we're able to direct grant program dollars, things like that currently, we can direct that they're used, that the positive factor dollars are used for those purposes.

And I do want to say, and I'm a former school board member, I will tell you that probably at least 85% of the average school district budget goes to your personnel costs. It is going to go to the costs of a lot of these things. And then in addition to that, you know, when you're adding costs on to like lower class sizes and stuff, there are a lot of costs that are included. But we feel it's important to be specific because when we go out and ask the voters, voters not only like time limits on what they are voting for, they also like specificity on what money is being used for. So that is why for that language.

I'll take a stab at both of those. You know, first, just because school populations in schools are declining does not mean that school class sizes are declining, right? It does not mean that you get smaller classes. Sometimes it has the opposite effect. If your enrollment is declining and your dollars are declining, then you have fewer teachers. you might actually have to, depending on how the dollars and the class sizes work out, you might end up with larger class sizes in order to use the limited dollars you have. It's not because you have fewer students also means you have fewer dollars, and you have to figure out how to use them. It's actually, that's one of the reasons we tend to give a higher percentage of funding to those really small school districts because they don't have the, it's like going to Costco, right, buying the things in bulk. You don't get that anymore as you have fewer students to spread the money around. So there's that. And then, yeah, I've always taken issue, frankly, with the idea that we're going to give fewer resources to schools or students that are not performing up to standard because what you find typically is that student performance tends to be more dependent on a student's zip code than anything else. It's where they grew up. It's just not a fair representation. And if we're going to take dollars away from the students who are most vulnerable and need it most, I think that's very problematic. So personally, that's where I land on that question.

but we only going to take 2 of it and make it applicable to the very what the right word I thinking of The very important items you identified Help me make sure I not confused Yeah, the four priorities.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The increase to what it is the state is investing in K-12 public education is an increase to the state investment in K-12 public education. and it is not 2% of the increase. We're not saying we're going to increase the REFC cap by $4.5 billion and only 2% of that goes to K-12. We're saying that the state investment in K-12 will increase 2% each year. We're going to pay for that increase. So that dollar amount is calculated based on what the state spends on K-12, not on the increase. But we're going to pay for that increase in K-12 funding by raising that revenue rationing limit. Now, importantly, raising that limit does not all of a sudden grant a new $4.5 billion into our budget. We are not $4.5 billion over the Tabor rationing limit at this time. What it does is essentially lets the state do what we did for most of the time that we all have been in office, which is grow at revenue. It lets us, you know, for 15 years after Governor Bill Owens passed Ref C, the state was under that Ref C cap, and we were able to invest about a quarter of the dollars that we had new every year into, a little less than actually a quarter of the dollars we had new every year, into K-12 public education. We were able to keep up with costs in Medicaid. We were able to invest in higher education in a way that still is one of the worst in the country, but we were able to increase that. Now that we are at this table rationing limit again, the same reason that Republican Governor Bill Owens went to the voters for FC is what we are seeing today, which is that I don't know that we get out of this year without actually cutting funding for K-12 public education somehow. You know, the governor is proposing that we take dollars from specific ownership tax. The short version is to take money from what it is that people pay for their car registration fees and that some of that money goes to schools and just getting rid of that and redirecting it, right? Like there's all sorts of ways that people are talking about cutting this year that are extraordinarily painful. The budget committee is the worst part of my day every day. What I can guarantee is if we don't do something for revenue, that school funding at best, at absolute best, will stay flat, but most likely there will be some new creation of an ongoing and permanent negative factor, simply because we can't keep up with our costs. Because the rationing limit is inflation plus population. The cost of health care rises faster than that. The cost of construction materials rises faster. And most importantly, 90% of K-12 is of salaries. and salary growth goes up way faster than inflation in most years, and our teachers are already some of the lowest paid in the country. We will not be able to keep up with what it is that we need to invest in K-12 if we don't have some kind of change to the rationing limit in our Constitution right now.

All right. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kevin Vick. I'm a high school social studies teacher from Colorado Springs, 25 years in education, and currently serving as the president of the Colorado Education Association. Last week, I was honored to stand in the state capitol building with dozens of educators from across Colorado who came to make their voices heard and share their support for Senate Bill 135. This critical measure will allow Colorado voters to raise Colorado's outdated revenue cap and finally allow our state to make meaningful and desperately needed investments in public education without raising taxes or spending a dollar out of their pocket. We've all seen firsthand that Colorado's public schools are chronically underfunded. underfunded to the tune of now 10 billion dollars that was taken away during the negative slash bs factor time period this is largely because of an outdated revenue cap enacted in 1992 more than 30 years ago that limits how much revenue the state can retain and invest as our population economy and student needs have grown the spending cap has remained tied to an outdated formula that doesn't reflect the needs of our schools today. The result is a three and a half to four billion dollar annual shortfall, annual shortfall, in our public schools. Every student is underfunded by roughly $4,000 each year. Colorado ranks near the bottom nationally in educator pay and retention. Students are learning in overcrowded classrooms with fewer counselors, fewer special education and fewer resources to help them thrive. Our educators are leaving the profession in droves because salaries haven't kept up with housing, health care, and cost of living. Rural and working-class communities are exceptionally hard hit by this crisis. Every child in Colorado deserves a fully funded public school where they can learn, grow, and thrive. That is what this bill is about. This measure is also about giving voters a choice. For years, we've seen temporary fixes and short-term adjustments to school funding. While there have been important gains, we still haven't solved one of the major underlying structural problems.

Apologies.

That's quite all right. For these reasons, we hope you support Senate Bill 135.

Good morning, Madam Chair and honorable members of the committee. My name is Candice Mosher, and I am an elementary educator and the proud president of the Poudre Education Association. I'm here today to testify in strong support of SB 135. Colorado's public schools play an enormous role in shaping the future of our communities. When schools have the resources they need, students gain access to smaller classes, stronger career and technical programs, mental health supports and the kinds of opportunities that help them discover their potential. For over two decades, I have had the privilege of being in a classroom with third, fourth, and fifth graders The entire duration of my career has been surrounded by creative maneuvering of financial dollars in every school and district I have ever worked because of the budget stabilization factor that has forced us to do more with less In my own classrooms, I have felt the heartbreak of knowing that I had students who needed more social, emotional support or interventions than we had the capacity to provide. It is awful to feel helpless when you see an eight-year-old who just needs a little extra help and yet there is no one there to deliver it. I have sat with colleagues as they cried because they lost their position due to funding and contemplated whether I should tell a student teacher in the room next door that they might want to think about a plan B. But at the end of the day, we need educators who are dedicated and determined to give our kids everything that they need. We do not have to exist in a system that operates this way. We can make the choices to adequately fund our public school system so that all kids can thrive with full-time art and music teachers and have the supports of intervention or enrichment that they need. We can give our kids the social-emotional supports that they also need in the public school setting so that they can access learning just like their peers. SB 135 offers a practical way forward. It allows Colorado to invest revenue the state already collects into our public schools so we can better support students and the educators who serve them, all without raising taxes. We are grateful for Senator Bridges and Senator Kipp's partnership on this bill and respectfully urge the committee to vote yes on SB 135. Thank you for your time.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. My name is Zelda Allao, and I'm a proud public school educator. at Cherry Creek School District at Samiran Elementary. I am asking for you to support Senate Bill 135. I am here today because I believe that every student deserves the right to a great public school experience, an experience that is fully funded to meet the needs of our diverse learners. Our teachers are exhausted, so much so they are quitting and quitting on our students. At my current school this year alone, We have had four teachers leave in mid-year. We cannot hire new teachers because of the funding. So we are using our resource teachers to take over the classrooms and take care of our students. I just recently became a third grade teacher. My contract says that I'm an instructional coach. But because of teachers quitting, I've been asked to go back into the classroom. because we do not have the funds and the resources to hire teachers for these classrooms, for these abandoned classrooms. I see the need. Our students deserve better. Our students need us. They only get one chance at their education and preparing for their futures. They deserve fully funded schools, schools that will help them learn, grow, and thrive. We want them to be outstanding citizens and contributors to our society, and that is why we need to fund public schools. Thank you, and please pass Senate Bill 135.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Jubal Yenny. I'm the Executive Director of the Colorado Association of School Boards, and on behalf of our members, I'm testifying in support of Senate Bill 135. I often ask superintendents and board members, how things are going and what is it that we can do for you This year I heard many more responses about the uncertainty of funding and how their school districts and their boards are going to manage the escalating cost of health insurance and the need for recruiting and retaining teachers. I've heard comments about tapping into reserves, followed by the inevitable, but we can't sustain that. Senate Bill 135 can help solve some of that angst directly raise teacher salaries which will help educators support their families without raising taxes. 135 refers a ballot measure for November to ask voters whether the state may retain tax revenue it has already collected but cannot keep under TABOR. If the revenue exists, TABOR simply requires voters approval before the state can retain surplus dollars. bill 135 works exactly as TABOR was intended, it puts the question directly to voters. CASB also supports this bill because it has an accountability measure which requires an audit of how an additional 2% per pupil funding, that positive factor, will be utilized over the next 10 years. Even though there's no guarantee of surplus TABOR funds year after year, this bill is fiscally responsible and helps schools when surplus tax revenues are available. I urge you to support Senate Bill 135. The students and families are counting on the Colorado General Assembly to support strong schools for the children's future. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, committee chair members, for this opportunity to speak for this bill. It took my brain some time to wrap around understanding this bill. As some of you know, I do speak on many bills here at the Capitol. Can you imagine the constituents that are not as familiar who need to vote on this? transparency on layman's terms is not prevalent in this bill if this proposal is truly good for taxpayers it shouldn't require taking away our refunds to make it work manage less income raises but many teachers are not going for these jobs because of the ideology being taught in the schools today. Education deserves honest funding debates, not a policy that quietly redirects taxpayer refunds into permanent government spending. Colorado voters created TABOR to control government growth, and this bill asks us to slowly step around that protection. There is no voter-friendly transparency in this bill. When government keeps surplus revenue instead of returning it, that's not a refund anymore. That's a tax increase by another name. We need transparency. The real question today isn't whether we support education. It's whether we respect the taxpayers who fund it. Mismanagement is under a great scrutiny today. Strong schools and strong taxpayer protection should go together. This bill weakens one to fund the other. Thank you. Please vote no on this bill.

I'm a board director with the Tabor Foundation also. The bill sponsors claim this measure complies with Tabor, but I disagree because of the confusing and misleading ballot question found on page 13. The primary single subject of this measure is eliminating TABER refunds forever. The ballot question hides this information. Citizen initiatives must comply with CRS 140-106, which requires clear and non-misleading ballot questions. Yet the bill sponsors want voters to approve a massive policy change without disclosing the full fiscal impact and elimination of their TABOR refunds in dollar amounts. The Colorado Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that ballot measures cannot contain provisions coiled up in the fold of a complex proposal. That would surprise voters. The proposed ballot question does not clearly state that TABOR refunds would be eliminated forever. It does not clearly tell voters the scale of the fiscal impact in the ballot question. Instead, it focuses on general descriptions of spending while avoiding the real question before the voters, whether they are willing to give a their TABER refunds permanently. Voters should not have to rely on the blue book to discover what the ballot question leaves out. The ballot question should stand and inform voters plainly. As a written, it does not do that. The ballot question should clearly disclose the estimated tax increase and clearly inform voters that TABER refunds would be eliminated forever. However, voters cannot give informed consent if the ballot language avoids the true intent and fiscal impact of the measure. I would ask the panel committee to answer, ask me two questions, three ballot change, title changes that would help. And please ask me about the Ref. C versus Tabor refunds, and I'll give you fiscal information. Thank you.

Okay, ready? Ready.

Hi, my name is Kim Monson, and I am the president of the Colorado Union of Taxpayers. I'm also the host of the Kim Monson radio show that broadcasts on KLZ 560 AM. And I start the day every day with a quote. This is from George Washington in his farewell address. And he said, I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. Senate Bill 26135 is dishonest and deceptive. Couched in helping children, paying teachers more, is actually taking our TABOR refunds ultimately forever. And that's deceptive and it's dishonest. And we need to have a relationship between our legislators and the people that there is an honest dialogue. Colorado taxpayers have rejected TABOR modifications twice in recent years and for good reason. One was Senate Bill. So Senate Bill 135 is the most sophisticated attempt yet. market a permanent TABOR cap raise as a temporary education measure, bury the general fund overflow in subsection C, and write ballot language that never mentions the word permanent. The fiscal note confirms the gain, $817 million in refunds banished in year one, and after 10 years, every dollar of retained revenue goes wherever the legislature decides. TABOR is the only constitutional check that forces government to ask permission before keeping our money. This November, voters need to read the fine print.

Hi, I'm sorry I don't have video.

First off, I'm against this. This few past years has proven that the taxes for the education is not what the Colorado people are being let to know what's happening. It's very frustrating to find out our Colorados are the lowest paid teachers. Our Colorado schools are crowded. crime has increased in our schools shootings and such. This proves to me that the fund committee is not monitoring the fund correctly in the first place. This bill is the title in this bill the title is incorrectly because it does not let Colorado taxpayers know that they will lose their TABOR tax in which these TABOR funds are what every Colorado parent grandparent and others depend on to buy school supplies clothes pay for activities for the students also the food for the lunches while at the activities to represent Colorado schools I feel the people of Colorado would benefit from the table refunds to manage their own children's education as they feel fit and their own children's mental house as they feel fit. Lack of the TABOR loss will increase undue stress within the families that are wanting their children to go to college. The funds of the TABOR was given in the state per the law that is required of each taxpayer and is in the best interest of the state to pay back the TABOR to those that do help financially the future of our children. I see that there is on the 2025 School Finance Act 25-130 stating that it demonstrates that the increasing school financially results in long-term increase in graduation rates. Now, in that audit in June 2025, the state most seriously, the most serious material weakness is financial reporting from several schools.

Okay. So how can we even put this bill out there when the reporting on the finances are incorrect? So do our kids really matter? And I definitely am against this mail. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The question is for Ms. Minton. You made reference to referendum C and some TABOR implications. Can you expand on that?

Yes. Thank you, Senator Bright. I'm happy to do that. Ref C was sold as a five-year timeout, but the end result is that over the course of time, it still impacts us. As far as I know, every single year. I can tell you a year ago, and I exchanged emails with Mr. Sabetsky to try to confirm my figures on what, over that period of time since 2005, how much have voters, taxpayers gotten back in TABOR refunds compared to what Ref C has retained in our refunds. So, again, showing this is not a five-year impact, such as this measure, which has been expressed as modeling ref C. Dollar amounts. Over the course of years since 2005, right? 13 point, I'm sorry, 13 billion has gone back to taxpayers over that long course of years. In that same period of time, Referendum C has kept $38 billion, $13 billion for taxpayers who had their money overcollected, versus Ref C, sold as five-year timeout, has kept $38 billion. That wasn mentioned It was a part that was an underlying very fine print and illustrates tremendous amounts of our money have already been kept And this bill modeled is not disclosing the financial impact Thank you.

not that it's a disrespect to the taxpayers no but the use of the funds and the way that it's presented is like another it's very deceptive it's very deceptive and the language is not clear so no not in any way it's disrespected I think that you're trying to use the funds that should come back to the taxpayers that they expect and use it for mismanagement or misappropriation for the school funds. And even though you say that it's going to be limited, it never has happened that way.

Oh, no. My children did. Did your children attend public schools in the state of Colorado when they were funded for five-day school weeks or four-day school weeks? Five days.

You can read it also. Oh, I will certainly be happy to do that afterwards.

How old are taxpayers?

You can go up to wage earners. And as old as my husband was, 76, and he was still working.

Why is it so deeply overfunded?

the finances being used inappropriately? I think more people and I have not done this, but I think there's some here that have better done that and have better knowledge of that, of the scrutiny of how the funds are being appropriated. And I think Ms. Menton is qualified to maybe answer that better than I. Well, I think that the, there is, you may not be able to see this because of the format of the camera here in the room, but I think that there is a room full of educators, Ms. Menton, I'm sorry, Ms. Nickerson, who can speak to that issue in more detail. Thank you so much for responding to the questions that I've asked. I think that's why if I can just say, I think in my thing, I'll say that there needs to be more debate, debate on the issue instead of bringing it towards people. In general, the layperson does not understand as much as this is going on to be voting on it. I think there should be more debate. Thank you.

You're great. Thank you for your participation.

There we go.

I have received at least three and I can go back to my records but there's more and Ms. Menton needs to answer on this please give her the courtesy thank you

thank you We have received Tabor refunds back to us in a variety of ways, and I take great, great disagreement with the way that that is being portrayed right now. Tabor, the best ways, first of all, you don't over collect, first of all. Secondly, we have had income tax reductions. We have had sales tax refunds. I could go through a link. I would suggest that instead of going along this line of trying to use the one Tabor refund check, By the way, Governor Pola spent extra money that we didn't have to spend to use a refund check thing to promote his name to run for governor. Beyond that, though, we have received TABOR refunds back in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, unfortunately, we have the state legislature, without a vote of the people, has taken away our TABOR refunds by shenanigans. And so please, please, let's be very clear. Please ask Mr. Stabetsky if you would like to. But don't portray that as you've only gotten. We've only gotten one TABOR refund or TABOR.

The other thing that I would like to say is that all of the educators that are in the room with you, they also will receive their TABOR refunds back as well. But what I really take issue with is that this is couched as K-12 education, but actually above that, my understanding is above that 2% for 10 years, that the additional money of ours that's being kept by the state can be spent any way the legislature really wants it to be spent. And then it implies with the 10 years that there's a sunset on this. But the actual language says, let's see, Section 2477302 of the bill states that for state fiscal years commencing on or after July 1, 2027, the state may retain and spend state revenues that the state otherwise would have been required to.

Honorable members of the committee, my name is Patrick Anthony Johnner. I'm a man, free-born, of awful age, and highly recommended. I'm a father, community leader, and a teacher at Denver Public Schools. Lake Middle School teaching math and science. I'm here today to testify in strong support for Senate Bill 135. Every day in our schools, educators work hard to prepare the students for their future with college careers or being community leaders. But chronic underfunding makes this job extremely hard. Not many resources, programs and support for our students that they need. I'm a 48 year old man raised in Denver my entire life. I remember being in the third grade, having to do fundraisers. The books in our classroom were tatted and destroyed, asking community members to help out. Let fast forward 30 years to now I an educator still dealing with the same issues selling parking on the weekend to promote school events teachers taking from their own family budgets to buy basic school supplies for their class running paper copies every day because I don't have enough textbooks to teach. This is unacceptable in this great country. So it brings me to ask the question, what is our priorities? I heard stated today earlier that funding schools should be tied to performance. How does that work? How should teachers be held accountable for performance when we don't have the tools to do our jobs? Imagine trying to write this bill with no paper or a way to communicate. Let's turn the air off in this room and let the heat rise. That is my classroom. What are your priorities? As a teacher, we all want the best things for our kids and we will do anything to make this happen. When we invest in public education, we are investing in the future. Our economics, our communities, and we're also investing in America. This bill allows us as a state to strengthen the investment using the revenue already collected. For the future of Colorado students and communities, I respectfully ask and urge you to vote yes, to vote yes, to vote yes on Senate Bill 135. And I thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Honorable Members of the Committee. My name is Irma, and I am a bilingual teacher in Fort Collins, Colorado. I am also a member of the Poudre Education Association. I'm here today to testify in strong support of Senate Bill 135. This measure is the epitome of a rising tide lifts all boats. It is not about choosing schools over other priorities. Because K-12 education makes up one of the largest portions on the state budget, when education funding is constrained, it puts pressure on the entire budget. And in schools, we feel those constraints directly every day. I started teaching because I love language and culture and because I knew what it felt like to be a kid who needed someone to believe in me. Right now, I teach kindergarten. And this year, I started with five to six students with IEPs and severe needs in my class. Kids who had never been in school before. Kids crying all day. Kids who needed specialized attention and we didn't have the trained staff to give it. We have one counselor for hundreds of students. We're all doing our best, but we aren't trained or staffed for this level of need. So when a student in crisis hurt another child, there weren't enough adults to keep everyone safe, including myself. Now I'm in counseling and physical therapy, and I'm sitting here in pain in front of you. It's hard to feel safe at the job I do care about so much. This is not okay. When we don't fund enough staff members to fulfill IEPs, when we scramble to fill positions with anyone, rather than train specialists, we fail our most vulnerable students and the educators responsible for them. We want to uphold our duty. We want to respond with care. Our kids with critical needs deserve specialized professionals who can actually be there for them. And the educators standing in the gap every day deserve to do their jobs without getting hurt or being under constant distress Strengthening school funding doesn just help classrooms it stabilizes the entire state budget I respectfully ask you all in the committee to vote yes on Senate Bill 135 Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Marlene De La Rosa, and I represent, I am a board member with CASB as well as a Denver Public School board member. Most importantly about Senate Bill 135 is we need to be clear. This bill does not raise taxes. The revenue already exists. Under Colorado constitutional limits, the state must ask voters for permission before retaining surplus revenue. 135 simply allows voters to decide whether or not a portion of that surplus should be invested in our much, much needed education funding. We are facing significant declines in enrollment across Colorado. In my district alone, I have lost 400 students this school year, the equivalent of one elementary school. We have tight budgets and greater student demands, such as special education. In Denver Public Schools, we are working to maintain competitive teacher pay, reduce class sizes, and expanding much-needed career and technical education so we may meet the demands of employers across the state. These additional resources will help every single school district in the state of Colorado. To expand on the work, I want to emphasize that because the ballot question centers on increasing investment in K-12, the funding allocations should clearly prioritize K-12 schools. Lastly, because this funding depends on surplus revenue, it should be viewed as a helpful step forward, not a total solution to Colorado school funding challenges. At the end of the day, this bill gives Colorado voters the chance to invest in each and every one of the students sitting in our classrooms today. Our job as policy makers and school board members is to make sure each of these students have the excellent teachers they need to support them and the opportunities they need to succeed. They are the future of Colorado, and I urge each and every one of you to vote yes on Senate Bill 135.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Todd Albright, and I currently serve as Vice President of the Canyon City Schools Board of Education. I also serve on the Board of Directors for CASB. Today I'm testifying in strong support of Senate Bill 135. First, it is important to recognize something. Public education in Colorado is already accomplishing extraordinary things despite increasing financial constraints. However, the reality is that we are asking more and more of our staff with fewer resources. Burnout is real, we are losing quality teachers, and the sustainability of that work is becoming tenuous. In Canyon City, we've already made many difficult decisions. We have increased student teacher ratios, decreased staffing across our buildings, and made painful cuts to learning opportunities, including extracurricular programs life skills classes and the arts even as the needs of our students to become their best academic athletic and artistic selves continue to grow We have limited valuable professional development for teachers and even had to consider whether smaller schools can remain open long-term. The question is not whether cuts will happen, but how deeply those cuts will affect the opportunities our students deserve. I often ask a simple question, What could we accomplish if Colorado funded public education at a nationally competitive level? Right now, we are managing scarcity. With this investment, we can focus on opportunity. With stable and adequate resources, we could expand concurrent enrollment, fortify our real-world apprenticeship opportunities, strengthen our nationally recognized CTE pathways, restore vibrant arts programs, and ensure teacher salaries are competitive so rural districts like ours can recruit and retain exceptional educators. It's also important to be clear what this proposal is not. It's not a tax increase. It relies on revenue the state of Colorado has already collected and only when a surplus exists. In the spirit of Tabor, it must be voter approved. It also includes accountability and it is a time-limited, purpose-restricted investment in public schools. As a board director for both Canyon City Schools and CASB, and as a parent and lifelong Coloradoan, I urge you to give Colorado voters the opportunity to invest in our future and our greatest resource, our children and their education. Our schools are already doing remarkable work. With the right level of investment, the possibilities for Colorado students are extraordinary.

Director Albrecht I am curious is the Canyon City School District on a four-day or five-day week? Mr. Albright. We have fought that battle several times, but we are holding fast to what we call a hybrid. We do an alternative four-day week, then a five-day week every other week.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for that response. And it sounds, if I'm understanding correctly, the implications of that is that in order to try to maximize said five-day learning opportunities for the students that has led to a massive number of cuts that you outlined in your initial testimony in other aspects of your district's budget. Director Albright. Thank you. Yes, if I'm understanding the question correctly, and I probably addresses some of the other concerns that were brought up against the bill, but we, I can remember years where our budget was just frozen because, and salaries were frozen because we were trying to keep people in jobs. And in order to, we negotiated giving time away. And so we've ended up with a four-day, five-day compromise. But as a board, we have fought really hard to keep student contact time. And that's been very hard because now we're working. We can't afford to pay for the extra time we feel like we need to get back from our teachers. So I don't know if I answered your question or not. No, absolutely. Thank you so much. Thank you for the work that you all do genuinely. And thank you for your testimony. And thank you for being here today. Yes. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.

Well, hello, committee members and people of Colorado. My name is Brandon Wark, and I'm representing myself. This bill is an irresponsible attempt to take billions of dollars of money out of our economy and grow the government. Coloradans are already struggling with their bills. Employers are leaving our state, and affordability is the number one issue facing the people. The bill sponsors are claiming that they are acting within the spirit of TABOR because this bill refers a measure to the voters. However, the reality is that this bill is dishonest. The bill language says, quote, without raising taxes, end quote, and makes no mention that taxpayers will lose their TABOR refunds forever. This is dishonest and misleads voters. Taxpayers will lose their money and the ballot title makes no mention of that. As has been mentioned earlier, this measure also subverts Tabor by failing to use capital letters to signal that this is a de facto tax increase. Colorado is spending more money than ever on education. While class sizes fall, test scores get worse, and administrative blow increases. This bill is simple. It's asking the voters to give up billions of dollars in our tax money. This moves Colorado in the wrong direction, will harm employers and workers alike. Pulling money out of the Colorado economy is wrong, and to add insult to injury, the language that voters will have in front of them is misleading. I urge you to please vote no on this bill. Please make it if you're going to pass it, please amend it to make sure that the voters have all the information in front of them. There been so much bad reporting on this bill in the media that voters and even some of the committee members didn seem to be clear that this is a permitted increase in our taxes ultimately on a de facto level because our tax refunds are going to be going away So I appreciate your time Thank you so much And take care And thank you We going to go to Ms Ginger Darrington Hi, I'm Ginger Darrington and I represent myself. And I guess I'm also speaking for We the People because We the People voted long ago on the Tabor Amendment and it's a constitutional measure that's upheld time and time again by the voters of the people that you serve. TABOR is meant for accountability and to keep the public informed and aligned with how our tax money is being spent. But this bill lacks transparency. And because it's stated as something that goes to state public K-12 education funding, it is deceptive because you're misleading people to believe that it's only for the children, but just a portion will likely go to the children. The rest of the money, especially after 10 years without sunset, will be given to the general fund. And so as we see the bill right now, it seems to be lacking that transparency. So I agree with Brian, I'm sorry, with Brandon, that says, if you could please reword this so that it is transparent. That's what I'm suggesting. Right now, I'm paying an extra $566 per year in property taxes, and it's specifically to fund my local school. And so, you know, I am paying taxes to my school, and I care about that. We are already cash strapped. And so anytime that we're trying to keep money that belongs to the people, it really needs to be looked at wholly and completely with transparency. So in light of that, I please ask you to vote no or change the wording so that it's

Erin Meshke. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meshke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. I spend a lot of time looking at weekly committee schedules and reading bills. By now, I should know that bill titles don't always tell the whole story. Thankfully, someone mentioned how SB 26-135 would impact the taxpayer bill of rights earlier today, so I quickly changed my morning to try and digest the bill in fiscal note. Education is incredibly important, arguably the most important thing a society can do. Teachers and students, however, have taken an increasing backseat to administrative expenses and bloated budgets that haven't led to student success. I grew up in Iowa in the 80s. We had nowhere near this amount of financial investment per student and without a doubt would say students from my era were better educated than what I have seen in public schools with my four kids and their contemporaries. I could talk about how low test scores are impacting all of this, but don't have time for that. In general, I support taking measures to the voters, but the legislature has a track record of deceptive or misleading ballot language, and the ballot question on page 13 is no exception. If this measure wasn't a tax increase, it wouldn't have to go to voters. So saying, quote unquote, without raising taxes on my 19 is disingenuous, especially when coupled with page three and page five of the fiscal notes that say any remaining revenue may be spent for any purpose. taxpayers have overwhelmingly voted to protect Tabor in the past so K funding is being leveraged as an impetus for the additional up to billion without any guarantees for educational outcomes The state must address waste in education, including bloated administration, fraud and waste in HICPF and other health expenditures, and a myriad of other superfluous programs throughout the state before it can be trusted with more funds. So I ask for your no vote on SB 26-135. Thank you.

Yes, Senator Bright. Thank you, Madam Chair. Question is for Mr. Wark. I believe I heard in your testimony that you felt the bill title was a little bit misleading. Can you point to some specifics in there that you think lead you to that conclusion?

Mr. Wark. Mr. Wark. Yes, you know, the ballot type. Thank you for the question. The ballot title does not makes no mention of what is listed in the bill on page eight near the bottom, which has been referenced previously. Page eight, section C says after making the appropriations or transfers required of this section, the General Assembly may appropriate or transfer money in the account for any other purpose for that same fiscal year. So this bill is going to change how this money is not only being collected and retained by our state government, but how it's going to be spent. The bill title itself does not mention that the bill title, the ballot title, excuse me, that the voters will be actually voting on makes no mention of that at all. So I do think that is misleading because the voters are told that all of this money is only going to go to education when clearly on page eight that specifies that that is not necessarily the case here. Also, in the ballot title, there's no mention that this is a permanent reduction, a permanent retention, excuse me, of our TABOR refunds. This is something that's going to last forever. And of course, there's no mention that this money would otherwise be refunded to the people. It just says without raising taxes, but instead funded by raising the annual limit on state fiscal year spending. Love it if it would say otherwise this money would be refunded to the people and that this is a permanent permanent thing here, permanent policy change. And not all this money is going to go to education. Some of it's going to go to other places. And the voters aren't going to have that information in front of them if this bill is passed as is. So thank you. And thank you.

Thank you. Hopefully you guys can hear me. We can. Good. So thank you for the opportunity to testify. I think the prior panelists expressed the challenges with this bill as written very well, particularly that the ballot language itself is misleading and hides the ball that this is a permanent retention of taper dollars. It's a permanent tax increase, and there's no linkage in the bill as it stands to that these dollars will actually go into teachers' pockets as opposed to administrative bloat. There is no tie to educational outcomes. And, you know, we hear so often about affordability challenges in this state. And yet this is the government taking additional dollars out of our pockets perhaps for a good use perhaps not And you know using it for their own ends as opposed to in the pockets of families But really big picture, this is about poorly written ballot language that is not clear, not transparent, and really does mislead the voters. Thank you. And if there are any questions, happy to answer them.

Senator Gonzalez Thank you Madam Chair Mr. is it work? I think it's work Mr. Wark Philosophically is there any any context under which you would support a tax increase Mr. Wark personally i think the government has more money than it's ever had before i think that tabor is very fair i think referendum c rigged the game a little bit in terms of the state government collecting more money than they ever should possibly at the local level if there was a need for services if there was a need for the local community i think that would make more sense than this statewide potential ballot measure that's going to affect millions and millions of people and billions of dollars over time. You know, it's one thing to have successful kids. We want that in schools, obviously, but they need to be able to find jobs after they get out of school. There needs to be employers. There needs to be able to keep their parents employed. We need to have a strong economy that invites businesses with low taxes and clear ways to give money back to the people if the state government's over collecting. So I think, Senator, I appreciate your question. And I would say, you know, on the local level, if there's a reason why individuals would say, hey, we really need a tax increase, then it might make sense. But I think this tax increase specifically is irresponsible. I think, Madam Chair, that that was a long way of saying no. Thank you. Or it was a long way of saying yes, hard to say. He said local, maybe not state.

Okay.

Hey, Maddie. We see you up there.

Yes.

Okay, great. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Honorable Members of the Committee. My name is Madeline Hyken. I'm a 10th grade English teacher and a proud member of the Aurora Education Association. I'm here today to testify in strong support of Senate Bill 135. Educators like myself see every day what underfunding looks like, larger class sizes, fewer support staff, and losing the programs that students depend on. Growing up, I highly encouraged my brother to play pretend school. I was the teacher and he was the student. It was not his favorite game, but it was mine. I always knew I wanted to be an educator, and I've been blessed to live out that dream, helping my students find their own passions. It hasn't been easy, and it's not getting any easier. I work with incredible students with diverse needs. That diversity energizes me, but it also demands extra resources. Our students thrive when their basic needs are met and they have access to the arts. Music, art, drama aren't extras. For many kids, they're a lifeline. Without funding, that lifeline disappears and student's sense of self diminishes. I worry about programs being cut and schools closing. Here's the unfortunate reality. Many educators like myself work two, even three jobs just to bring supplies into our own classrooms to provide students with enriching learning opportunities. Senate Bill 135 gives Colorado voters the opportunity to weigh in on a responsible solution that allows the state to invest revenue it already collects into our schools. Our communities deserve a chance to decide whether we should strengthen our public schools for the future. I respectfully

Good afternoon. Oh, can I start? You may start. You've got two minutes. Okay, let's go. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honorable members of the committee. My name is Benjamin. I am a world language and science educator at Stanley Lake High School. I am a father of two grade school age children and a proud member of the Jefferson County Education Association. I'm here to testify in strong support of SB 135. Across Colorado, educators are leaving the profession because salaries haven't kept pace with the rising cost of housing, health care, and living in our communities. Our students deserve stability and experienced teachers in their classrooms. but chronic underfunding makes it harder every year to retain great educators. I'm a public school teacher with a master's degree. I teach five different courses. I work evenings and weekends. I teach concurrent enrollment. I teach IB, and it's very hard to keep up. The exhaustion is physical, emotional. It's constant. I'm burned out, I'm not. But I keep going because I love my students. I love my job. I work a full time job and two part time jobs. I live in public housing. I cannot afford my own district's health insurance for my children. My wife is disabled. Medicare is the only reason we can afford her medicine. One medical crisis could destroy us. I wake up at night terrified of the bills. I'm afraid. choosing between my family survival and the career I've given my life to. But I know my worth, my students know it, and I deserve, we all deserve to live in the communities we serve without constant financial fear. More funding means smaller classes, manageable workloads, teachers who aren't running on empty, who can actually show up for their students who need them the most. Our educators are drowning. If we don't invest in sustainable conditions, we will lose the very people our students depend on. Our students deserve stable schools staffed by experienced educators who can build lasting relationships and support their learning That stability requires sustained investment in our schools and the people who work in them This bill helps create that stability by allowing Colorado to invest in its educators and students. I respectfully ask for a yes vote on SB 135.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honorable members of the committee. My name is Bernadette Janelle. I'm a retired special education teacher and administrator and a proud member of Colorado Education Association retirees. I'm here today to testify in strong support of SB 135. Throughout my 40 years of service, I have fought to fully fund critical programs and provide the necessary support in order for students with challenges to succeed. Every child deserves a fair shot at a great education that will promote their ability to make a meaningful contribution to their community upon graduation. Currently, that's not the reality for too many of our students because fiscal limits prevent the state from using revenue it already collects to meet the needs of our growing population. As our communities and students' needs have increased, the spending cap has remained tied to outdated assumptions from 1992. As such, we see it every day, bright, capable kids who are falling behind, not because they can't learn, but because they don't have the resources they need to succeed. When class sizes are too large, these students get lost in the shuffle. They become a face in the crowd instead of a name we know. Smaller class sizes would change everything. And here's the truth. Smaller classes mean manageable workloads, and that takes funding. More teachers, more seats, more support. When we're stretched too thin, the students who need us most get left behind. Our kids are counting on us. SB 135 is a responsible step toward modernizing this outdated system and allowing Colorado to invest in our schools and communities using the revenue the state already collects. I respectfully urge a yes vote today on SB 135. Thank you very much for your time.

No, ma'am. We're in a support position.

Thanks. Thanks so much, Senator. Good afternoon, members of the committee. I am Mattia Shore. I'm the director of KH-12 Education Policy at the Colorado Children's Campaign. The campaign is a nonpartisan policy organization committed to making Colorado the best place to be a kid and raise a kid. We use data and research to identify what kids across our state need most and then advocate for policies that strengthen their well-being and help them thrive. Thank you to Senators Bridges and Kipp for carrying this critical and exciting legislation. And thank you all for allowing me to speak. The campaign is here today in a support position. For decades, Colorado schools have been underfunded, impacting students, teachers, and communities. I don't have to repeat the devastating consequences of underfunded schools to this committee. This bill is a substantive and courageous step toward full, sustainable, and predictable funding for Colorado schools. And the campaign thanks the bill sponsors for their extraordinary hard work and leadership. Raising school funding under TABOR is no small undertaking. It's absolutely critical, however, that every dollar we raise for schools is spent equitably. Educators, policymakers, and fiscal experts worked for 10 years to design and implement the 2024 school funding formula to do just that. The campaign hopes to see stronger language and commitment to the 2024 school funding formula in Senate Bill 135. We suggest that after the phase-in of the new formula is complete, all revenue raised through this bill flows equitably to schools through the 2024 formula. When students receive the support and resources that they need, they get to be kids. We know that some students need more resources and support than others, so Colorado designed a school funding formula to direct more dollars to schools serving greater numbers of students living in poverty, learning English, living in rural Colorado, and with special learning needs. Senate Bill 135 needs to do the same. I urge the committee to affirm Colorado's commitment to equity in the 2020 school, 2024 school funding formula and to enthusiastically support this critical work in Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Mary Parker and I'm here testifying for myself in strong support of SB 135. I am the past president of the Jeffco School Board. I am the proud parent of two Colorado teachers and the grandparent of six Colorado students, grandmother of six Colorado students. The school finance formula and the School Finance Act from 2024 was quite challenging because it sort of pitted small school districts against large school districts, and it was really hard to find a sweet spot in there. But this bill is good for everybody. I am so appreciative of the sponsors. I want to thank you very much for bringing it here. I like that it's called the positive factor because the BS factor cost Jeffco School District almost a billion dollars over 10 years. So we really suffered through those years, and we don't want to see that happen again. I also think putting this to the voters is honoring Tabor. And I know from my own experience talking to thousands of voters, most of them don't know the details of Tabor. They are not aware of much more than you have to go to the voters to increase taxes. But once you get to refunds and any other formulas, they're not aware of it. Also you know sometimes you hear that you can fix everything just by throwing more money at it Well in this case that the first thing we have to do If you underfunded then you have to first put the money in there so then you can go figure out how to fix the things that are not working properly So I appreciate so much that you have brought this bill here. I support it wholeheartedly and look forward to championing it in the future. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm here today because the future of our communities is sitting in our classrooms right now. My name is Dr. Jeremiah Johnson. I've been a K-12 teacher for 10 years. And now I work as an assistant dean at Colorado Mountain College. I serve as the school board director at Buena Vista, Colorado R-31, and I'm speaking today in my individual capacity, not on behalf of my job, board, or district, and I'm here in support of Colorado Senate Bill 26-135. In communities like mine, our teachers do extraordinary work, but the reality they face is getting harder every year. Many of our teachers work two jobs just to make ends meet. Even with a full-time professional career educating our children, many cannot afford to buy a home in the communities where they teach. The data shows this isn't just a local problem. In Colorado today, teachers earn about 38% less than any other professionals with similar education. And our state ranks 46th in the nation for starting teacher pay. Let me share a quick story. Not long ago, I spoke with a young teacher in our community. She loves her students. She loves the work. She wants to build her life in Buena Vista. But she told me something to stop. Even with a full-time teaching job, she works a second job. She shares housing to keep costs down. And still, she isn't sure she'll be able to afford to stay in the community where she teaches. She wants to stay for the kids, but she told me quietly, I'm not sure the math will let me. And when teachers leave, students feel it. Schools feel it. Communities feel it. We see turnover, poor retention, and the stability our students need begins to slip away. We have to consolidate classes, increase class sizes, and ask even more from teachers who remain. And the truth is, Colorado schools are estimated to be about $4,000 short per student every year compared to what experts say is needed. In rural communities like mine, the school isn't just where students learn, it's the heart of the community. If we truly value education, our funding decisions must reflect that value. I urge you to support Colorado Senate Bill 26-135. Thank you.

No, you're good. Are you in an opposed position? Okay. Are you in an opposed? Your support. Hold for two seconds. You're good.

Okay.

We don't have you all in here, so we'll try to figure that out afterwards. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Colleen Enos, and I represent Christian Home Educators of Colorado. We support home discipleship that is Christ-centered, parent-directed, and free from government control. There are approximately 57,000 homeschool students in the state of Colorado. Their families not only pay their taxes to support all the other students in Colorado, but additionally they bear all the expenses of educating their own children themselves. I personally homeschooled all my eight children from the time they were in kindergarten until they graduated from high school. And we paid all of those costs associated with education ourselves. Money does not equal education. Look at states with higher per pupil funding and low outcomes. homeschooled students score approximately 50 to 20 points above their public school counterparts on standardized tests and they do this without public funding with by paying for education themselves raising homeschool families taxes and everyone else's taxes in the state of colorado is harmful and it is not equitable. It is not the solution. Please vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. May I? I mean this in as genuinely and serious and honest a way as possible. Bring me those cuts. Show me those cuts. 135 new programs. Bring them to me and tell me the ones you'd cut. No joking. I have spent this week cutting health care for kids. I don't like doing that. If you can bring me something that lets me not do that, amazing. Last year we cut all of the fat that we could find. It was the easy cuts last year. This year it is the heartbreaking painful cuts that keep me up at night. This is the worst part of my day that I'm about to head over to at the budget committee. If you have something that you think we can cut, bring it to me. And you know what, if you don't bring it to me, bring it to the floor during the budget debate and let's have that conversation. Let's talk about what our priorities are because I don't like what I am voting to cut across the street every single day. It hurts my heart. I would love to hear the plan. I would love to know the programs that you would cut instead Let have that conversation Until then unless we can find the extra billions that we need for K this is the best plan we got Ask for an I vote

moving your bill? I would love to move my bill, although sadly it is going to appropriations. I move SB 26 135 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.

As amended.

Senators Bright.

Rizal.

Gonzalez.

Polker.

Mollica.

Simpson.

Snyder.

Kip.

Madam Chair.

6-3.