May 12, 2026 · Appropriations · 2,776 words · 13 speakers · 126 segments
. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you House of Appropriations will come to order Ms. Pope, please call the roll.
Representative Spasenecker.
Here.
Bottoms.
Here.
Joseph.
McCormick.
Here.
Soper.
Here.
Taggart.
Here.
Totone.
Here.
Velasco.
Here.
Zokai.
Here.
Madam Vice Chair.
Here.
Mr. Chair.
Here.
All right, we're going to go a little out of order from what's in the packet today. We're going to start with 170, move on to 185, and then we'll do Senate Bill 80 afterwards. All right, let's start with Senate Bill 170. Representative Bacon, welcome. What questions do we have for our bill sponsor?
Representative Taggart. Mr. Chair, I wonder on page two of our canary package, which really looks to me like page three, but it's labeled page two. Assistant Majority Leader, you refer to opportunity gaps in several of your bullets. And I wonder what opportunity gaps means in this context. I know what it means in a business context, but I'm a little puzzled with what it means here.
Assistant Majority Lee Braykin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Taggart. On page two of the bill, and we did workshop the definition, of opportunity gap with stakeholders, including our educators. In the bill, it says disparities in students' access to educational opportunities and disparities in academic outcomes, including but not limited to achievement, growth, graduation rates, and post-secondary readiness experienced by groups of students based on factors such as race, socioeconomic status, geography, disability status, and English learner status. Such disparities may be influenced by differences in access to necessary supports inside and outside the classroom, high-quality instruction, stable learning environments, and qualified educators, as well as by school, district, and state-level policies and practices. And so to summarize, we're talking about internal and external factors that keep groups that have been, I would say, historically disenfranchised from being able to maximize their learning potential, their educational potential, which is not just academics, but it is also any sort of characteristics or programming that they need to be able to thrive.
There's no questions. All right, seeing none, we have no amendments in our packet. Are there any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Let's see.
Representative Satone. I move Senate Bill 172 to the committee of the whole.
We'll say your recommendation. Second.
Seconded by Representative Velasco.
Is there any further discussion?
Representative Soper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Representative Bacon. I did want to explain my position on where I'm going to land today. I'm going to be a no vote, and that's not from the work you've done here by any means. Really just from a reflection of the fact that we have a Department of Education, and this seems like it should be the central goal within that department. and every action they take every single day should be about closing these gaps and ensuring that no matter where a kid lives in Colorado, they have similar opportunities so that they can thrive and be successful, whether they're in downtown Denver or rural Colorado on the western slope or eastern plains. and that it really comes from more philosophical view that I just worry we're kind of duplicating what we should already be doing rather than looking back internally on how to reform some of our departments, looking for efficiencies to get them back on track to the goal that all of us share.
Additional questions or comments from Representative Taggart?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I read this, there was one section that really annoyed me, and it's not you. I get very tired of departments saying to do their job, they need point to additional people to find a facilitator and work on the data. I don't know how you feel about that, but I think that's a ridiculous request on their behalf. Just ridiculous. And going off of what my colleague just said, this is something they should be doing. And given the fact that you've identified opportunity gaps, obviously there is a need for improvement. and rather than embrace this and say, let us do this with you, they hit us with a point to FTE, which to me is just absurd.
Thank you, Representative Taggart. Representative Titone, I was wondering if you would withdraw your motion and clarify.
Yes, I withdraw my motion and I move Senate Bill 170 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
It said 172 before, so. Second.
Seconded by Madam Vice Chair, who is now here with us in person. I was already here.
And you were already here, but now you're here in person. Okay, further comments? All right, Ms. Pope, please call the roll.
Representative Spasenecker.
Yes.
Bottoms.
No.
Joseph.
Yes.
McCormick yes Soper no Taggart yes to tone yes Velasco yes so okay
Representative okay well excused
Madam Vice Chair yes, Mr. Chair. Yes
Okay, that passes eight to two with one excused Congratulations, you're on the committee of the whole. Alright, let's go to Senate Bill 185. Do we have our bill sponsors? We do have our bill sponsors, great. Committee members, do we have any questions for our bill sponsors? Alright, seeing none. Do we have any amendments? Nope. Alright, seeing none. The amendment phase is closed. Committee members do we have any or sorry Madam Vice Chair or sorry Madam sorry Representative Tostum I move Senate Bill 185 to the committee to hold a favor of recommendation Second Seconded by Representative Velasco Any further discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Pope, please call the roll.
Representative Spasenecker.
Yes.
Bottoms.
Yes.
Joseph.
Yes.
McCormick.
Yes.
Soper.
Yes.
Taggart.
Yes.
Totone.
Yes.
Velasco.
Yes.
Sochi excused. Madam Vice Chair.
Yes.
Mr. Chair.
Yes.
She came off the mute online. Want to try her again? She's gone now. Okay. That passes 10 to zero with one excuse. Okay. Congratulations, Your Honor, the Committee of the Whole. There you go. All right. Representative Taggart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if I need to make a motion here.
You do. If you would like the committee to reconsider Senate Bill 80, since you voted on the prevailing side, I believe the proper motion would be, I move to reconsider Senate Bill 80, having voted on the prevailing side, something like that. Let me verify that.
Mr. Chair, I move to reconsider Senate Bill 80 and my vote on that particular, on Senate Bill 80, 80 that was previous yesterday.
All right. The motion is heard and is proper. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Representative McCormick. Is there further discussion about the motion to reconsider Senate Bill 80? Representative Sober.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I was not on the committee yesterday. I had a replacement. And I will say that had I been here, I would have voted for Senate Bill 80 as I would today. However, while that's proper, I do have concerns about any time we reconsider. And that's always been something that I've had. I mean, all eight years, that's been a factor. That's not something we do very often. we, you know, that's saved for the gravest of mistakes. So I do have reservations about reconsidering what a committee of reference, or in this case, the appropriations committee has already decided and wanted to lay that on the record.
Thank you, Representative Soper. Are there additional comments on the motion to reconsider? Representative Taggart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. and picking up on what Representative Sober just spoke of, I made a mistake yesterday. I told people that I was on the fence on this particular bill. I was concerned in particular and have talked to both the co-prime sponsor of this bill about this, that my area of concern had to do with the career grant program side of things, because as this committee knows, I was one of the sponsors, I can't recall if it's 1317 or 1417, I think it's 1317, that consolidates all of our career programs with higher education. And the reason to consolidate those is because today it's almost impossible for a parent and or a student to see clearly and efficiently all the options that are available to them for their education post high school. and I have an assurance from folks that we're going to work together on that to make absolutely certain we don't make this more complicated than it needs to be and that we respect the fact that we've got a working group coming together to look at workforce development, career opportunities, and higher educations in potentially one department. So I was clear yesterday, Representative Soper, you weren't here, so you would not have heard it that I was on the fence and I got clarification. So I admit my mistake and bring it back today.
Thank you, Representative Tiger. Appreciate that. Any further discussion? All right. Ms. Polk, please call the roll.
Representative Basinecker.
Yes.
Bottoms.
No.
Joseph. Yes. McCormick. Yes. Soper. Yes. Taggart. Yes. Titone. Yes. Velasco. Yes. Zocay. No. Soper. No. Madam Vice Chair. No. Mr. Chair. No. That passes on a vote of 625.
All right. Given that the motion to reconsider passes, and at this point in time, I will note that a motion to reconsider passes on a majority vote, whereas normally in session it would take two-thirds, but we're in the last 10 days, so the rules have changed. Given that the motion to reconsider has passed, the consideration of the bill is now back in order, and I will open the amendment phase for additional amendments to the bill. Representative Lukens.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members of the committee, for supporting the motion to reconsider. in your canary packets there is L12. Obviously I'm not a member of the committee but I would respectfully ask that the committee consider L12. So L12 has been brought in response to concerns that I've heard from this committee. The goal of L12 is to say that the program will cease to exist if there are no gifts, grants, or donations received. In conversations with our bill drafter, we have to – apparently it is common practice to refund gifts, grants, and donations to donors and granters in similar provisions in statute so that if there is money remaining in the cash fund that they can send that remainder to the general fund. And so the way that the amendment is drafted is to align with other areas that we have seen that happen. but I know that there was concern from the committee around the general fund being on the hook, and that is certainly not our intent at all, so I respectfully ask for a yes vote on L12.
All right committee members would someone like to move L012 Representative Fatone I move L012 Second. Okay, seconded by Madam Vice Chair. Is there further discussion about L012? Are there objections to L012? Seeing none, L012 is passed. All right, committee members, do we have additional amendments? Representative Zocchi.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe you have L13 and L14 in front of you. I want to thank the bill sponsors for working with us on the language here. And with that, I'm going to move L13.
Second. Seconded by Madam Vice Chair. Would you like to explain L13 briefly?
Sure, yeah. L13 is ensuring that grant money is going to entities that are well-established in their area and that have been serving the area for at least three years, as well as making sure there's diversity as to the number of programs it goes to so that not any one single organization is receiving all the funds.
Representative Lukens.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to note for the record that the bill's the amendment sponsor has worked with me on this and I respectfully ask the committee to vote yes Thank you
representative Lukens Are there objections to are there further discussion on L013? Seeing none any objections Seeing none L013 is passed All right representatives okay. Thank you, mr. Chair. I move L14 Second seconded by my advice chair
Would you like to describe L14 just briefly? Sure, Mr. Chair. Thank you. We wanted to ensure that there is a bit more diversity of opinions on the advisory council, and so this is adding members with different areas of expertise and ask for your guest vote.
Representative Lukens.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to also note that I support this amendment as well.
Great. Further discussion on L14? Objections? Seeing none, L014 is passed. All right, any additional amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Again. Let's see. Representative, who would like to move the bill? Representative Fatone.
I move Senate Bill 80 as amended to the Committee of the Whole to favor a recommendation.
Seconded by Representative Taggart. Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to restate. I appreciate this sponsor working with folks on some amendments that helped make folks feel better. But my position still stands that is far out of practice that I've ever had to pass a bill for a grant program, million dollar grant program that is ongoing with gifts, grants and donations for something that is state. And so I will respectfully remain a no today.
Representative Zocca.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to note that I share Madam Vice Chair's concerns, and I do think the structure of Senate Bill 80 is fundamentally something that I think has issues. And I will be voting no on the floor for that reason. But given that the sponsor was kind enough to work with us to get this to a better place and accepted our amendments, I will be voting yes in committee today. And thank you for doing that.
Representative Sopper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll also be voting yes in committee. I will say that certainly in talking to the Senate president, I express that human services, in my opinion, is the best place for this program to sit. I'd rather see it sit somewhere like the Department of Local Affairs that certainly has a really good track record of how they dispatch grants in a fair and equitable way. I think human services certainly has some reform that needs to take place within that department and perhaps that's personnel but that's who we have. The other concern and I share this with the vice chair as well of the committee that it's kind of hard when you're mixing both private function and state function together and the only thing the state has is basically holding the bucket but it's the private sector that's dumping the resources into that bucket at least at first and there's always the fear that at some point in time there's a slight change in the legislation and then this becomes a a general fund obligation of the state so I think it is important to kind of think about how that looks in the future. I like the fact that this is something that considers the entire state, because oftentimes it seems like more resources go to the I-25 corridor and don't make it out to our part of Colorado. So that part I appreciate, and that's why I will be in support here today.
All right, thank you, Representative Soper. Is there further discussion? Seeing none. Ms. Pope, please call the roll.
Representative Basenecker.
Yes.
Bottoms.
No.
Joseph.
Yes.
McCormick.
Yes.
Soper.
Yes.
Taggart.
Yes.
Totone.
Yes.
Velasco.
Yes.
Zocay.
Yes.
Madam Vice Chair.
No.
Mr. Chair.
No.
So that bill passes on a vote of eight to three. All right, members, we have concluded our work. I just want to thank, take a few moments, I want to thank Sarah Shahzad and Jesse Newberg for their work in scheduling bills and preparing all the packets and committee reports. I also want to thank our committee staff, Kelly Shen, Michelle Curry, Sam Rickman, and especially Emily Pope, who is not written down on this piece of paper. I want to thank all the JBC fiscal analysts, fiscal notes, and OLS staff who collaborate to produce all the various canary packets that we all get, which are so helpful. The sergeants and our LIS staff who make the room, make sure the room is prepared for meetings, and our partisan staff who collaborate with nonpartisan staff to prepare amendments and answer questions, so thank you to Carl. For that, the work of the House Appropriations Committee is adjourned. Thank you.