March 30, 2026 · 1,867 words · 6 speakers · 36 segments
Get started. This is the hearing for Proposed Initiative Measure 2526, Number 182, concerning retaining and spending K-12 education revenue. It is 1 p.m. on... You said 182, I think you mean 282. Yes, 282. It is 1 o'clock on March 30th, 2024, in Room 109 here at State Capitol. We will go around and introduce ourselves for the purposes of the record.
My name is Anna Gerstle with Legislative Council staff.
Nicole Myers, Legislative Legal Services.
John Caldera, proponent.
Nash Herman, proponent.
Shane Madsen, counsel for proponents.
Great. So Section 140105, subsection 1, Colorado Revised Statutes, requires the directors of Colorado Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services to review and comment on initiative petitions for proposed laws and amendments to the Colorado Constitution. The purpose of this statutory requirement of the Directors of Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services is to provide comments intended to aid proponents in determining the language of their proposal and to avail the public of knowledge of the contents of the proposal. While this is a public meeting and members of the public are free to be here and listen in, The purpose is not to hear from members of the public, but to hear from the designated representatives of the proponents of the initiative and their council. Other persons are not permitted to comment. Our first objective is to be sure we understand your intent and your objectives in proposing the law or amendment. We hope that the statements and questions contained in our memorandum provide a basis for discussion and understanding of your proposal. So we will begin by reading the purposes as stated in the memorandum dated March 27, 2026. The major purposes of the proposed amendments to the Colorado revised statutes appear to be 2. Make findings and declarations of the people of the state of Colorado. 2. Create a voter-approved revenue change that allows the state to retain and spend an amount of state revenue equal to the amount of state public K-12 education funding in excess of the limitation on state fiscally or spending, and to increase state public K-12 education funding by up to 2% for 10 years. 3. Require Legislative Council staff to determine the amount of state public K-12 education funding and describe how Legislative Council staff will make that determination. 4. Create positive factor funding to provide additional funding for each school district for the 27 through 2036 budget years and to specify a formula for calculating a district positive factor funding five specify that a district may only use this positive factor funding for increasing teacher pay improving teacher retention lowering class sizes and increasing access to career and technical courses number six create the excess state revenues account referred to as account within the general fund which consists of an amount of money equal to the amount state the amount of state revenues in excess of the excess state revenues cap that the state retains for a given fiscal year pursuant to the proposed initiative. Seven, require the General Assembly to first appropriate money in the account to the Department of Education to pay school districts positive factor funding, and after that to allow the General Assembly to appropriate money in the account for any other purpose. Number eight, direct the state auditor to conduct and publish for each state fiscal year that the state retains and spends state revenues in excess of the limitation on state fiscal year spending. A legislative report that includes descriptions of A, the amount of state revenues that the state retained and spent that would otherwise have been in excess of the limitation on state fiscal year spending, and B, how the state revenues that the state retained and spent that would otherwise have been in excess of the limitation on state fiscal year spending were expended. And nine, make conforming amendments to ensure that voter approval of the proposed initiative does not impact the expanded earned income tax credit, the family affordability tax
credit, or the affordable housing financing fund. Does this accurately reflect your intent? Yes.
Great. We are now going to go through the substantive comments and questions outlined in the memorandum. Nicole and I will alternate on reading the question, and please feel free to respond to comment after each question for the record. The substance of the proposed initiative raises the following comments and questions. Number one, Article 5, Section 1, subsection 5.5 of the Colorado Constitution requires all proposed initiatives to have a single subject. What is the single subject of the proposed initiative?
I think you've laid it out pretty well.
Okay. Two, the following comments and questions relate to Section 3 of the proposed initiative, which creates a voter-approved revenue change in an amount equal to the state public education funding for the state fiscal year and defines state public education funding. A, proposed Section 2477.303.1 specifies that state public education funding is the total amount appropriated for categorical programs and the state share of total program funding that is subject to the state spending limit for the preceding fiscal year. This amount historically represents billions of dollars. For example, the state is estimated to spend approximately $4.8 billion on state public education funding in the 2026-27 state fiscal year. Proposed Section 2477 subsection 1 authorizes the state to retain and spend revenues that would otherwise have been refunded to the taxpayers pursuant to Article 10 of Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution known as TABOR in an amount equal to the entire state public education funding amount Is it the proponent intent to authorize the state to retain several billion dollars of excess state revenue annually
This initiative is basically a carbon copy of Senate Bill 135. So whatever answers they would have for 135 would apply to this.
Proposed section 2477-302-2A creates an excess state revenues account in the general fund, which consists of the amount that the state retains from the voter-approved revenue change. Proposed section 2477-302-2B requires a general assembly in each state fiscal year to transfer or appropriate from the account to the Department of Education an amount necessary to pay the school district's positive factor funding pursuant to the proposed initiative. Proposed section 2477-302-2C allows the General Assembly to appropriate any money remaining in the ex-state revenues account for any other purpose.
Is it the proponent's intent to require an amount equal to the lesser of 2% of state total program funding for the 2026-27 budget year, or the amount that would otherwise be refunded to the taxpayers pursuant to TABOR, to be used to increase funding for schools and to allow the rest of the money retained to be spent for any other purpose without restriction?
I would give that to the authors of the original bill.
Number three, sections six and seven of the proposed initiative amend the earned income tax credit and the family affordability tax credit. Both sections add state public education funding to the definition of non-exempt revenue for the applicable state fiscal year in alignment with current law. The availability and funding of these specific tax credits are dependent upon the amount of non-exempt revenue collected by the state.
Is it your intent that this measure does not impact the availability and funding levels of these credits? Is it your intent that this measure also does not impact the availability and amounts of other credits that are dependent on non-exempt state revenue, such as the innovative truck credit and the electric bicycle credit?
Same answer.
Four.
What fiscal or other impacts may result from the enactment of the proposed initiative on state, school districts, and individual taxpayers in Colorado? To the extent that the enactment of the proposed initiative leads to the retention of significant excess state revenues, how do the proponents anticipate the General Assembly will use the remaining money permitted for any other purpose?
You can guess my answer. Same one.
Number five.
Under current law, certain seniors, veterans with a disability, and Gold Star spouses are eligible for property tax exemptions. The state is required to reimburse local governments for lost property tax revenue due to the exemptions. In years where revenue exceeds the referendum CCAP, reimbursements to local governments are considered a TABOR refund mechanism. In years where revenue falls below the referendum CCAP, the state must pay the reimbursements from another source. What priority do the proponents intend that the reimbursements to local governments will have under the proposed initiative?
You'd have to ask the authors of the bill.
Six the proposed initiative appears to be substantially the same as the introduced version of Senate Bill 26 which is currently being considered by the General Assembly What happens if both the bill and the proposed initiative appear on the ballot? What happens if voters approve both the bill and the proposed initiative?
I guess that would be up to the courts to decide, or what would happen if they both lose?
So, it's up to the courts. Okay. So next in the memo, we have technical comments. Would you like us to walk through the technical comments outlined in the memo? Or do you have any questions about those?
You don't need to. We've already made those changes. So thank you very much.
Yeah. Well, so those are all the comments in the memorandum. Do you have any further comments or additional remarks?
Yeah, I do. I was just curious, since you guys did catch on with that, this is a this is Senate Bill 135 put into a citizens initiative form. I'm curious, the questions that were asked, including that a single subject were the proponents of the bill, the legislators who put the bill are the same questions asked to them since it does the exact same thing.
um we cannot discuss the questions that or the discussions that we had with legislators before bills were introduced as those are confidential and so i can't comment so this is open to the public so this is open to the public but when a legislator does that it is closed to the public no it's the attorney client privilege well legislative legal services as you know is nonpartisan staff for the General Assembly, we have communications with members when they are preparing their bills. Those bills are those, I'm sorry, conversations are privileged.
So what is the single subject of Senate Bill 135? Because by rules of the legislature, every bill has to be under a single subject.
that's above my pay grade i mean we we are not we're as non-partisan staff we don't comment
on who makes that call then well anything passed any bill passed by the general assembly is presumed constitutional if people disagree with the constitutionality of a bill um people can pursue that in court So there is no check and balance on a single subject for a bill as there is for an initiative.
That's for the General Assembly to decide.
Thank you. Any other comments, questions, anything? Great. Thank you. Then with that, the hearing for initiative number 282 is adjourned. Thank you.