April 27, 2026 · Budget Committee · 5,269 words · 11 speakers · 179 segments
. Oh, uh... Thank you.
The first conference committee for House Bill 1411 will come to order. Ms. Kanagaraja, please call the roll whenever you get set.
Sorry.
Okay. Senators and Representatives. Bridges.
Here.
Brown.
Here.
Kirkmeyer.
Here.
Taggart.
Here.
Amabile.
Here.
Sirota. Here. Okay. Given that we had differences to work out between the House and Senate passed versions, Mr. Vice Chair, would you like to make a motion?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move we start with the Senate version of the bill and then adjust the dental cap up from $750 per member to $1,100 per member. The cap applies to all cover all Coloradans participants, which is outlined in the first report of the first conference committee.
So can I move both at the same time?
Second.
Second by Senator Kirkmeyer. Ms. Conagraja, please pull the committee.
Senators and Representatives, Bridges.
Aye. Brown.
Yes. Kirkmeyer. Aye. Taggart.
Yes. Amabile. Yes. Madam Chair.
Madam Chair.
Yes. All right. That passes on a vote of 6-0 and thank you Ms. Princell. Thank you Ms. Princell for joining us.
Do you need to speak or just be available for questions All right Mr Vice Chair Thank you Madam Chair I just want to make sure we don mess this up Are we good like that I moved we adopted the first report of the first conference committee
I said that it was in the report of the first conference committee. I'm not sure that that was included in the motion. Yes.
I intended it to be certainly so great. Are you going to make the motion? Nope. I think we're good.
Do we need a motion to adopt the report?
No. Isn't that what we just voted on? I move we adopt the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 26-14-11.
Second.
With the changes outlined as previously mentioned.
Seconded by Senator Kirkmeyer.
Ms. Conagor-Rasio, please pull the committee.
Senators and Representatives.
Bridges. Aye.
Brown. Yes.
Kirkmeyer. Aye.
Taggart. Yes.
Amabile. Yes.
Madam Chair, yes. All right, that passes on a vote of 6-0. And anything else from anyone on this? All right. The first conference committee for House Bill 1411 is adjourned. Now, the Joint Budget Committee will come to order. Mr. Vice Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move we direct JBC staff to adjust the placeholder for Senate Bill 2642, the answer to the ultimate question, in two ways. First, I move that we add a placeholder for the $2.3 million general fund appropriation identified in the most recent fiscal note for the bill for FY2627. Second, I move that we increase the placeholder for the amount reclassified under the bill from $30 million to $44.7 million for fiscal year 2627.
All right. Any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. This one's for Mr. Kurtz. I move that we add 7 million total funds, including 2.9 million general fund, to exempt additional maternal and NICU codes from the provider rate reductions to 85% of Medicare and the 2% provider rate cut. I don't believe I need to mention the specific codes, but I do want to ensure that the family planning codes are included in the dollar amounts listed here. They are getting a firm head shake in a yes.
Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you.
And so the codes, Mr. Kurtz, the codes that you were given last week are the codes that are included.
Thank you.
Mr. Kurtz. The codes that are included are the ones in the April 23 email from Senator Kirkmeyer and the family planning codes that received the 90% federal match.
Great. All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0.
Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move we add $7.7 million total funds, including $3.8 million general fund to delay by six months the implementation of a policy ending the automatic enrollment of youth aging out of the Children's Extensive Supports, CES, and Children's Residential Habilitation Program, CHRP, waivers into the adult comprehensive DD waiver. The intent is to delay the implementation of the change until January 1, 2027.
Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. All right.
Mr. Vice Chair, we don't have any more. Oh, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we direct staff to prepare the conference committee report of the first conference committee on the long bill based on the prior discussions and motions approved by
Do we have to be in a conference committee to do that? Okay.
Oh.
Yeah. Yeah. You didn't object.
Either way is fine?
It's here. All right. The Joint Budget Committee will stand in recess. The conference committee for, first conference committee for House Bill 1410 will come to order.
Ms. Kanagaraja, please call the roll.
Senators and Representatives, Amabile.
Here. Brown.
Here. Kirkmeyer.
Here. Taggart.
Here. Mr. Vice Chair.
Here. Madam Chair.
Here.
All right, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we direct staff, the JBC staff, is this staff general broad? I move that we direct staff of whatever staff this would include to perform the following motion to prepare the conference committee report of the first conference committee on the long bill.
What number is that?
1410.
House Bill 1410, based on the prior discussions and motions approved by the Joint Budget Committee.
Are there any objections?
Oh, do we have to call the roll on that motion?
I suppose so.
Do we need a second?
Second.
Second.
Okay. Second by Representative Brown.
We're waiting on the computer. This is why I was almost a no on the legislative budget.
Okay. Senators and Representatives Amabile.
Yes.
Brown.
Yes.
Kirkmeyer.
Aye.
Taggart.
Yes.
Mr. Vice Chair.
Aye.
Madam Chair. Yes. All right. That passes on a vote of 6-0. Anything else from us, Director Harper? All right. Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll need to meet again as the conference committee on the long bill, House Bill 1410, before we can sign anything or is this so we don't need to move to adopt the report?
Headshake would be a no. Director Harper.
Great. You can just sign it. It's based off of our decisions we just made.
But are we doing the rest of this agenda which has potential legislation?
We certainly can. but I think we're done with this conference committee for now.
So the conference committee for House Bill 1410 is adjourned. Now, did you have more for us that you planned on doing as a JVC, Director Harper?
Madam Chair, I did not have more that I was planning to do this morning.
Okay.
We can give it a shot you all have moved beyond the general fund overview that I would have had prepared for you at this point So I will update that and have it to you today
All right. Well, we're not. Okay. The Joint Budget Committee will come back to order. Sorry. But it doesn't sound like we have anything else to take care of this morning. You will prepare a new overview for us.
That's correct, Madam Chair. I'll prepare the new overview. I am...
Apparently there may be one thing. I'm not... The question for the committee is if you would like to do the next potential legislation packet now or wait?
I think we're not ready for that now. We'll look at it, though.
Okay. So it sounds like members would like to look at it. I don't know if we're ready for it, but it would be good to be able to review it.
It would be good to review it.
Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Ms. Pickle?
Madam Chair, I think, you know, it's, do you want to address this one right now or not? is the what this is is the kind of information collection related to online and part-time enrichment programs it intersects potentially with your other part-time enrichment bill in terms of like if you're doing certain things you might not need to collect all the different pieces of information in here but but you could always amend something out of it too if it didn't end up being relevant so I can walk you through it now or we can do it at a later time whatever you'd like.
I say walk through, please.
I think walk us through it, but then is there any reason not to just combine this with the other bill that we're working on?
Yes.
Okay, great.
There is a reason not to?
I think so.
Let's go through it and we'll find out. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
So the title is, as you can see, somewhat on the broader side, but it's really focused on specifically the collection of information is really where the heart of this thing is. So there's a couple of different parts to it. The first part has to do with the online education. So I think that would be one of the reasons for keeping it separate from the other bill, is that the other bill has to do with both, with part-time enrichment solely, as far as I believe. So for the... The first part is definitions, and then you move into the specific components related to online education. It says that the report will include the following, and I'm looking on page 3, lines 11 to 13, is where you're sort of moving into what would be collected on online education. So you've got data on numbers of students and percentage of students receiving online instruction, common course delivery methods, common contractual information, academic quality of these programs, options and recommendations for collecting additional data to the extent that you're not getting enough information from what's available. and sort of a fiscal analysis comparing state payments for online schools, online programs and supplemental programs against actual costs incurred and options and recommendations for oversight structure for online programs that take into account the operational realities of online education and also funding changes necessary to address significant disparities between program expenditures and per-people state payments. I mean, just as you'll remember, right, there are some questions that came up from the department and that I raised during figure setting, but we don't fully understand the cost of delivering online programs, and you've got fairly high expenses for delivering both single district and online programs, and so the idea is to collect more information about those things so you can actually make a decision about it. Then on page five, you move into data collection related to part-time enrichment, and there you have categorizing different types of part-time enrichment programs, addressing to what extent these activities are aligned to subjects in which standards exist, whether the same programs are available to other students free of cost, meaning, you know, full-time students at public schools. there's some specific requirements, and this is really why you needed a bill as opposed to an RFI, that says, right, the department's going to use data collected and that it, local, on page six, lines five through nine, local education providers shall provide accurate survey responses, contracts, and other financial documentation related to online and part-time enrichment programs requested by the department pursuant to this section. So that was sort of the key reason you have a bill rather than an RFI is to make sure there's actually responses getting provided to the department's requests for information in this area. And then the section two of the bill specifically relates to a program where you designate of BOCES that provides online, supplemental online education courses for throughout the state and this portion is also the necessary statutory provision to ensure that the department and that BOCES has information like individual student identifying numbers which makes it possible to evaluate the quality of those programs and the impact of those programs Can you just say clearly what lines 15 through 19 on page 6 say
What exactly is that doing?
Oh, yes. What's currently in law is that every five years, the department is supposed to authorize a BOCES to be the entity that is the authorizing BOCES for these part-time supplemental enrichment programs. So what happens is you've got the department designates a BOCES. that single BOCES is then responsible, and it's Colorado River BOCES who's had this contract since the beginning. They then offer, there's like a $2.2 million appropriation, and they then offer these supplemental online courses for every school in the state that wants to have their students do some supplemental online courses. And so this would allow the department to go beyond five years to have two additional years before redesignating a BOCES so that they could study this stuff in the meantime.
And this only applies to online?
That's right. And it's not just all online. It's this very specific supplemental online program.
Senator Kirkmeyer?
It's not part of the language.
Why do they need two years?
I mean, we've been waiting a long time.
Ms. Bickle?
Senator Kirkmeyer, you could make it less, just to be really clear though, this is not about the part-time enrichment programs. This is strictly about this specific supplemental online program that, where you designate a particular BOCES. You could make it less time, but since you're, you've, you're extend, you're asking for a report that's due in November, they, and they, and you're providing greater capacity to do student identification stuff, I think the department feels like it kind of needs an additional year to actually see how that data all ties together. So you could, so they, so that they can actually see how individual students who are enrolled in these supplemental online programs, again, not supplemental enrichment, but supplemental online, how they perform in comparison to other students to the extent they're doing academic courses. So this is the kind of, this is the program where I think the example I provided was like the Latin teacher at Boulder High might be the person teaching an online course for a student in Lamar. And the state is providing a subsidy to make that feasible. Great.
Senator Kirkemeyer. And do we, are we going to have an appropriation clause that says they'll do this within existing resources?
Senator Kirkemeyer, you have already authorized roll forward of $125,000. It's included in the long bill that covers the full cost here. So there will not be any additional costs.
Okay, good.
Senator Amaboli.
So the, thank you, Madam Chair. The title says that it's full-time, who are not full-time in-person students, but it does also have part-time enrichment educational programs. But you're saying this really isn't dealing with those,
this is just dealing with the online? It's dealing with both insofar as it's related to data collection. So it collecting data related to both but that what it doing And that why it a little and because it got like that little bump in time for the reauthorization of the state supplemental online program because of that it's got this slightly broader title. Okay.
Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. On page 4, lines 1 through 12. and I raise those in comparison to lines 18 through 20, I would just like to see this data also compared to in-person. I think it's great to have the other data, but you're very specific when you get to letter G, that it's comparing state payments for online schools against, well, maybe I'm interpreting G incorrectly. I interpreted G when I first skimmed it, that it was looking at online versus in line as a comparison or in person. I don't see that kind of specificity in lines 1 through 12. And I'd really like to see the data that way as well.
Ms. Bickle? Rep Taggart, I mean, I think the bigger challenge is in a way what that question is sort of like, I may not be understanding you correctly, but if I do, the question would be very broadly, how do we compare the amount we give schools with how much they spend, which is sort of your broader school finance question. Am I misunderstanding?
I'm sorry. No. I think I misinterpreted G. So let's just go back to 1 through 12. Just from a simple perspective is the specifics that you're asking for. For instance, one of them is student post-secondary outcomes. How does that outcome, I like seeing that data, but how does that outcome differ from in person? Is it better, same, worse? That is a form of a quality measure in my humble estimation. Just having the data alone of online is subject to interpretation, but it helps it when you ground it versus in person. And that's something that I try to do in my teaching My teaching is compare my online courses from my in-class courses. Am I being as effective? Are the students getting as much out of it?
Rep. Taggart, that is 100% the intent. And I think that would be what the department would do, would be, again, to the extent data is available, right? So we do have in line three and four, this data may be clearly available to some extent and less clearly available to another extent. But I think that is absolutely their intent would be to compare those We can certainly add if you wanted something that makes that more explicit Thank you Madam Chair I would like to see that
When you say this may include analysis of data related to that you added there,
that the word comparison come into play there. So with your permission, then, I mean, what we do, I think, would be just an add some additional language on page 4 that specifies this as in comparison to other students or something like that, other public school students.
Does that work for you?
It does.
Mm-hmm.
Is everyone all right with that?
Yep.
Okay. Okay. So are we interacting now? Does everyone feel right with this?
Yep. Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to introduce LLS 0983, Administration of Publicly Funded Ed Programs.
All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. This bill will start in the House, I guess. Sponsors, Sirota and Tiger. And in the Senate, Burgess and Kirk Meyer. And co-sponsors, Mama and Brown. Thank you. Alright. That's it? Alright. That's it.
Oh, I have something else actually, but I don't know if it's the right time.
I realize I haven't talked to you all about this, but I think we've had conversations maybe individually with folks. We have this issue, which is a sort of a technical one, which is when the long bill starts in a given chamber, it is also the chamber that carries the sunsets. And that creates a lot of traffic in one particular chamber. And so I'm wondering if the JBC might be amenable to the idea of carrying a bill that would make sure that the chambers alternate. When you have the sunsets, you don't have the long bill and vice versa. It's a little bit of a weird idea, but I think it could be a process improvement that could actually help the flow of the legislature in general.
SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT NEXT YEAR... WE'D HAVE TO... THE FIRST... THAT WOULD START IN THE HOUSE AGAIN. AGAIN. YEAH. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE... OR WE... YEAH. WE'D HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WEIRD LIKE THAT FOR THE FIRST YEAR, BUT AFTER WE DID THE FIRST YEAR, THEN IT WOULD, THEN IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, MAKE EVERYTHING...
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST AS FAR AS TIMING GOES, I... I worry that having them in opposite chambers means that, say, so the Senate next year, if they start in the House, they sort of head to the Senate right at the same time the long bill hits the Senate. So that's my only concern is the timing actually works out better, where the chamber with the sunsets does the sunsets, they go over to the other chamber, and then it's the long bill. But I also have run only two or three sunset bills, so I haven't really tracked how much they impact the floor work.
Well, there's a lot of sunsets that been sitting in House of Propes and what we've had to move through when they were clean. I do think it does put a burden on the majority leader and the floor work in the House.
But anyway, it's an idea that I think deserves some conversation. And if it's premature and we need to talk about it in another year, that's fine too. but I thought I'd just throw it out there while we were meeting today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm happy to, I mean, I think it'd be great for the House to start it another year, and then if it doesn't work out, then we just keep it in the House for one more year. So happy to give it a try.
Okay, sure. Well, I guess I would like to hear from JBC staff about whether that makes any difference at all to them, or if, and maybe it doesn't, but also at least in the Senate, the sunsets are not controversial usually. They sometimes are, but the bulk of them are not, so it, I don't know. Yeah. Sorry.
It's our process and we take so much longer than us to do this. It might be, yeah. I mean, we do take a lot of time to do these things because we have a lot of feelings in the House, as you all know, and we have a hard time sitting down and being quiet.
So that's really the reason that I was trying to bring this up. It doesn't prevent us from having to consider that we still have to consider them. And I think to the vice sheriff's point, you know, in terms of the way the timing works now, when the House has a long bill where spending can complete all of that and then it moves on to the second chamber as well, then the House still then has that leap while they are doing budget work to... Okay. I don't know. If nobody thinks this is a good idea, that's perfectly fine, too. I just thought I would bring it up.
I just think you might want to wait a year. Because otherwise you're going to end up with them over there anyways next year. And you're still going to have them. Then you'll have them there next year because of where the budget goes. And then you'll still have your same issue. You understand what I'm saying? You did them this year. Right. And then next year, if the bill were to pass this year, next year you would have the sunsets again in your chamber first. That's true. And then, but the long bill would be in the Senate. And then they would flip each year. I understand, but you could end up with the kingdom three years in a row if people don't like it. Just saying.
Okay, fair enough. Well, I mean, if it's a problem to be the first chamber, you know, that takes longer.
I kind of like the idea of the sunsets always start in the Senate. No. When we have sunset bills, do you have to do the hearing in both chambers or just the first?
What do you mean the hearing?
The whole, like, you know, you have to have the presentation of the...
Oh, yeah. Just the first chamber.
Well, yeah. Just the first chamber. I mean, that I just am curious if any, because that does take more time in whatever first chamber it starts. That too I guess has an impact on committee work I DON THINK IT Senator Mobley I don know I don think it a terrible idea that we always would start the sunsets in the Senate where we are able to move stuff a lot more quickly and not get as bogged down as the House gets. I think the alternating is fair, and I don't know.
Maybe everyone wants to mull this over. That's fine. Just an idea.
Okay. Senator Kirkmeyer. Just curious where we're at on the restructuring.
I didn't know if you were prepared to talk about that. I would just say that I spoke with the Human Services Director from Weld County who is chairing the Human Services Directors Association this year and is in pretty close contact with CCI and also heard from CCI folks that it seems like the bill is in a – they haven't seen the bill, but the work that they've all put together seems like it's going forward pretty smoothly, and I didn't know if you want that still to be just a bill outside of the JBC or you want it to be a JBC bill. But it sounds like it's working. I don't know. Just thought I'd bring it up. Thank you, Senator Kirkmar. I had intended to, and now I come unprepared. So I would be very glad to make this a JBC bill if everybody would like to do it. is clearly something that we were proposed as part of the budget. And I guess I just kept this out of the budget process because there was a, well, we had enough to do. But in the months since all of this had been put forward, I am really grateful for the work that the counties have done with our state agencies and with advocates to really try to work through this incredible challenge that we have which is HR1 has put a lot more burden on the states in terms of addressing our error rates within our safety net programs and also we are just continuing more generally TO OPERATE WITHIN KIND OF FLAT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THESE SAFETY NET PROGRAMS THAT IS PUTTING A HUGE BURDEN ON OUR COUNTIES TO BE ABLE TO DO ALL OF THIS WORK. AND SO WHAT HAS COME TOGETHER IS A BILL THAT EVERYBODY, WE DON'T HAVE A FULLY FINISHED DRAFT, BUT PEOPLE WERE WORKING REALLY HARD EVEN OVER THE WEEKEND. SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE HAVE A DRAFT READY FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE NEXT COUPLE DAYS THAT PROBABLY STILL NEEDS SOME AMENDMENTS, I WOULD GUESS, BECAUSE IT'S A LENGTHY BILL AND THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PIECES OF STATUTE. BUT IT IS REALLY TO TRY AND ADDRESS THE SHORT-TERM CHALLENGES OF PUTTING IN PLACE A PROCESS for ensuring we are working very, very diligently as a state and as counties to address the error rates. This works in concert also with the work that everybody has been on board with, with the IT, you know, reimagining CBMS and making sure that we are putting together a system. But that's happening over here, but they are happening in parallel. and then putting together a process for everyone to work through the summer to set forward what we will do in terms of a more medium and long vision for how we better manage the administrative work for these safety net programs And so to Senator Kirkmeyer point I think everybody is feeling really good about the direction that everything is going and that we have all arrived at a very good place. And so I would be very glad if the committee wanted to sponsor this as a JBC bill. I don't know entirely what the right process for that is, given that not everyone has been able to see any sort of working draft of this.
Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm fine with this, and I would expect that our colleagues would somewhat expect that we would be behind this bill because it has such a potential negative budget impact if we don't get this correct. Okay.
Well, Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll also add that for at least eight years here, I have been aware of the disparity between states that manage their benefits at a statewide level and those that manage them at a distributed county level. And this seems like a good middle ground to try and move what it is that we get from the federal government up while also addressing this really painful cut we could be seeing
if we don't get our error rates under control. So I think there are multiple benefits for this. I didn't think that I'd be able to work on getting some sort of solution to this distributed management system before I left, but here we go. So I'm all in. With that, move to draft, or should we just introduce? I don't know what it is. I HAVE A BILL DRAFT WITH MS. PRINCELL, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT THING, RIGHT MOTION IS HERE. MS. PRINCELL, WHAT'S BEST?
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. CHELSEA PRINCELL WITH THE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES. I THINK BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A DRAFT TO PRESENT TO THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW, the motion would be to draft, since there's not a version ready to be reviewed to move to introduce.
Yeah. Okay. Okay.
Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to draft the bill that's been drafted. With whatever changes are about to happen. Yeah.
Okay. Yes. So proceed on as you have been to make sure that we are implementing all the necessary changes that have been requested Give us a copy and then we'll introduce it. Great. All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Okay, so we'll reconvene when we have that. And for some other things. But it sounds like unless anybody's got anything else, we may stand in recess. Director Harper?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Craig Harper, JBC staff. JUST REALLY QUICKLY, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK TOMORROW UPON ADJOURNMENT, I'LL HAVE AN UPDATED GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW TO PRESENT THEN THAT REFLECTS ALL OF YOUR ACTIONS THROUGH TODAY. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. AND WE'LL HAVE, WE SHOULD HAVE THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT FOR YOU TO SIGN TODAY. GREAT. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ONE. AND ALSO, WE HAVEN'T TAKEN OUR PICTURE YET, SO IF EVERYONE MIGHT BE PREPARED TO TAKE A PICTURE TOMORROW. unless you feel like you're at your best right now.
I'm ready. I ready I always ready I like to wait until tomorrow Yeah I was going to say Jeff and I wore a matching ties so we should take a picture today Well just wear the same thing again That what Senator Bridges does We basically do anyway.
All right, so photo and general fund overview tomorrow. No, you won't. Senator Mobley.
I'm hoping to get some language to the bill drafter today on the Medicaid committee. and so maybe we can look at that bill tomorrow.
Yeah, that's a good idea. All right. Our point people are pointing us in the right direction. Red Brown?
Okay.
All right. With that, the Joint Budget Committee will stand and recess. Thank you.
Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. .