House Finance [May 09, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Representatives Brooks. Excused. Macho. Here. Garcia. Gonzalez. Hartsock. Here. Marshall. Stewart. Here. Winter. Here. Okay. Excused. Madam Chair. Here. Woodrow. Excused. Here. He's here. We have a quorum. All right. We have our sponsors here. Let's go.

Red Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee members. So this Senate Bill 170 passed out of House education. And so on advice of a committee member on finance, we will keep this to the financial repercussions with this. This is set up through gifts, grants, and donations. And that has already been identified by the Buckner Foundation that they are going to pay for this in full. And so since that is there, there is no financial impact to the state, and we request a nine vote. Questions from the committee?

Thanks so much, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thanks for taking time for testimony this late in the day. My name is Mattia Shore. I'm the Director of K-12 Education Policy at the Colorado Children's Campaign. We're a nonpartisan policy organization that uses data and research to advocate for policies that help Colorado kids thrive. As this is the Finance Committee, and it's 420 on Saturday evening, and I'll keep this very short and focused on the financial aspects of this bill. In a moment when so much of the education policy conversation is about challenges and deficits, Senate Bill 170 gives us a chance to focus on excellence assets and what is working for Colorado kids across our state. Policy changes are only as powerful as the people on the ground who believe in them. The campaign's hope is that by celebrating and lifting up the good works of our best educators in schools, as Senate Bill 170 does, we can get more people believing that we can do this. We can get more kids reading on grade level systemically. The work will require some careful listening and deep conversations with educators, but the campaign is looking forward to continuing the conversations. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a yes vote on Senate Bill 170. Happy to help with questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. So, again, as I said earlier, that this cleared through Education Committee. We have funds that are available or that have been identified through gifts, grants, and donations. And then the only thing I wanted to read was the CASB testimony that they had, and then we'll close it out. good afternoon chair or the finance committee i'm here representing nearly a thousand local elected board of education members and their superintendents who make up colorado association of school boards on behalf of casby membership i'm here in support of senate bill 170 i've also been asked to include the colorado rural schools alliance and the colorado education association or colorado association of school executives and the colorado education association the southern Colorado Springs Alliance and the Douglas County School District. The aforementioned organizations would like to thank the bill sponsors for their work on this bill. The organization looks forward to the opportunity to work with a broad group of education and community experts to join the conversation about how we can all ensure that every student has the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential. Colorado, rural, urban, and suburban areas all deserve these opportunities and these opportunities need to be available in all corners of the state. On behalf of CASB members and our fellow education partners from across the state, we urge you to vote yes on the bill, and we urge an aye vote.

Representative McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here with Senate Bill 191, which is, I guess it's the special of the day, another bill for gifts grants and donations that will allow health care policy and financing to receive allocations to provide an enhanced rate for nursing homes who bring on and care for behaviorally complex residents. Currently, we have a growing population of residents that have very complex needs that are living with intellectual and developmental disabilities, schizophrenia, dementia, and other serious conditions, and they require a higher level of supervision. Currently, nursing homes are very willing partners, but due to recent events over the last year, at the federal level as well as our state level, they don't have the resources to do it right. and these resources would go to higher staffing levels, specialized workforce training, enhanced safety protocols, and behavioral supports. This bill creates a pathway for this additional funding through gifts, grants, and donations. We do have a dedicated source that is ready to contribute $750,000 to build this capacity to help stabilize these residents in place, which will provide that continuity of care, medication management, and behavioral stabilization. And there will also be a reporting requirement on how well this is working. This is a one-time, one-and-done situation. This is not, I made sure to ask, it's not a foot in the door for our budget. It would need all kinds of new policy to continue this, but it is really to help with this acute need right now and deliver that access to care. It's much more affordable to have these folks be in nursing home and long-term care facilities. Currently, they're in hospitals, which take up a tremendous amount of funding and this is a better way to not only care for those folks but also a less expensive way to do so. And I believe we have a couple of people here to testify on the why and the what of the bill. And I urge an aye vote.

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Jessica LeClaire, and I'm a licensed clinical social worker, and I've worked in skilled nursing homes since 2009. I'm here to support this bill as the skilled nursing population is shifting. When I started in social work, the demographic of nursing home residents probably fits into what most people think about individuals that reside in the nursing home, elderly, age 65 plus individuals who through the aging process have lost physical or cognitive abilities that allow them to safely live in the community. This population still resides in nursing facilities. However, the most recent data shows that younger residents ages 18 to 64 represent approximately 14 to 16 percent of the nursing home population, and this number is growing. These individuals are often placed in nursing homes due to traumatic brain injuries, intellectual disabilities, severe mental illness, behavioral concerns, and other traumatic injuries. These are the individuals in our facilities that need the highest level of support, not only from our staff, but also require support and coordination with external agencies and providers. It should go without saying that these individuals are often these individuals are often place us at high risk when we are surveyed by state and federal agencies. Not only do they need the most support, they present the highest risk to the facilities themselves. As one can imagine, skilled nursing facilities are often hesitant to admit these younger mentally ill or in general, those residents with complex behavioral challenges. We worry about our ability to effectively meet their needs, which can in turn cause us to be noncompliant with state and federal regulations. They increase our hospitalization rates, impact our quality measures, and in general require more staff time to provide the personalized care and engagement they need from clinical and psychosocial staff. Because of this hesitancy, these folks end up sitting in a hospital until a facility finally agrees to admit them. In one particular case that comes to mind, there was a behavioral resident living in a hospital for more than 300 days. This is not fiscally responsible nor a positive living situation for that individual. Those of us that work in skilled nursing and long-term care have a desire to serve the greater community. We want to bring in these more behaviorally complex individuals and stabilize them in our homes, which is the lowest cost care setting. What we lack is the financial incentive that offsets the clinical and regulatory risk it poses to admit these complex cases, as well as the financial assistance to be able to provide these residents with the additional care and resources they require. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Holden Grandstaff, and I oversee 10 long-term care facilities here in Colorado along the Front Range, specifically serving residents who often have complex medical and behavioral needs. I want to start by saying this. Long-term care facilities are willing and, in many cases, eager to care for more behaviorally complex residents. These are individuals who might otherwise remain in hospitals or cycle through emergency departments. With the right support, we can stabilize them in our facilities, providing consistent care in a setting that is not only more appropriate for their long-term needs, but also significantly more cost-effective than hospital care. However, there is a gap between what we are capable of doing and what we are currently able to sustain. Right now, facilities face two major barriers. First, there is no meaningful financial incentive to admit and care for these higher-acuity behavioral residents. These individuals require more staff, more specialized training, and often more intensive care coordination, yet reimbursement structure don't reflect that increased complexity. Second, and just as important, we lack the financial support needed to provide the additional resources these residents require. That includes staffing, behavioral health expertise, safety measures, and ongoing training. Without those supports, facilities are forced into difficult decisions, not because they don't want to help, but because they have to remain operational. The result is that patients who could be safely cared for in long-term care remain in hospitals longer than necessary. That drives up health care costs and limits access for others who need acute care. With the right financial incentives and targeted support long care facilities can become a key solution in managing behavioral health needs across the state We can reduce hospital overcrowding and improve patient outcomes and deliver care in the most appropriate and cost setting We are ready to be part of that solution but we need the tools to do it Thank you for your time and your commitment to improving care for some of Colorado's most vulnerable residents.

No amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, as you've heard, this is a solution that we need right now to help get some of these patients out of hospital settings and into the nursing home facilities that are willing and able, and also just to help the workforce training. These people that can be trained with this funding would be able to stay on longer term. So this training is an investment that will last long beyond the dollars once they are spent. So I urge your support on this bill, and that's all I have to say.

I move Senate Bill 191 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Anyone? Second by Representative Marshall. Thank you. Please poll the committee. Representatives Brooks.

Camacho.

Garcia.

Gonzalez.

Hartsook.

Marshall.

Stewart.

Winter.

It's okay. To tell them. Yes. Mr. Chair. Yes. The pass is 10 to 1. Have fun on the floor. All right. Next bill. We can get Representative Paschal. Thank you so much for your patience. And AML Winter. Who would like to kick us off? Representative Paschal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. I just want to remind committee this isn't an energy bill. This is an education bill. The school of mine supported 110%. Why should students have to leave the state to get this education? We already have somebody that has a program, and this can trickle into some of our junior colleges. I think it's important to note that. And one thing I do want to say is we've had debate, and we talk about kids all the time. I've been involved in nuclear legislation now the four years I've been here, and it's the youth that come and testify in favor of this. They've been told they need net zero, and believe it or not, it's crazy to see the age differentiation in testimony, and it seems like the college kids and the high school kids come testify in mass. in support of nuclear energy. I think this is important and I want to say it again. This is an education bill. Like my co-prime said, right now there's tons of federal funding sitting out there right now that we can pull into this. We've already received commitments from San Isabel Electric and Xcel Energy that are willing to throw money into this program right away to start off the seed money. I think it's important to remind you all that in 2027 if the funds don't arrive, that the program goes out the door. But we heard in testimony, it's crazy to hear how a lot of these nuclear scientists and physicists are starting to age out. And we heard from a gentleman who his mother-in-law started a consulting firm. And they literally in the last week have hired like six kids. And it's so hard to find people that have this type of training. I think it's important to keep kids in Colorado if they're not having to leave the state. It helps with in-state tuition. And we talk about leading and things all of the time. And I think it would be awesome to be able to say that some of our talented youth, whether they work in the state of Colorado, which would be our hopes, or they move out of state, that they're trained in this state and that we keep putting out good quality young people that want to help with a better future. So with that, I urge an aye vote. Thank you, committee.

Committee My name is Michael Neal and I thank you for bringing to the sponsors AML Winter and Rep Pascal for bringing this bill I do rise in opposition not because you know AML Winter is at least in part right This is an education bill. And to that extent, you know, any education bill that we can fund is a good bill. But funding an education bill around nuclear implies that we have already decided that small module nuclear reactors and other parts of the nuclear industry are coming in Colorado. And I think that that's very much an undeclared decision in many Colorado municipalities. And I was just looking at the Aurora Sentinel this morning about a minor fire that was caused in a nuclear industry issue. So, again, I think that it was sort of fortuitous that I saw that this morning and this bill comes up today. I think we've got a lot of things to solve before we actually start this sort of funding. Where do we store the spent fuel? Where do we do any of these things to keep it safe? What are the protocols? All of those things. For the finances, I would also say that nuclear is not the cheapest without further subsidies. So I would rather we look at other cheaper alternatives. And I think that this is a bit of a premature step to fund these grants, to fund these educational institutions, which I would normally be greatly in favor of, when we don't even know whether or how many folks in the nuclear industry Colorado wants or needs. municipalities are split municipalities are resistant and I don't think that this is the time I ask for a no vote thank you committee any questions for the witness

I just want to reiterate there will be no state funds going to this. This does not put a nuclear plant in Colorado. It has nothing to do with spent fuel rods. It has nothing to do with local decisions. This has to do with providing workforce education for the next generation of nuclear physicists and labor that may work in another state that wants nuclear energy. It is supported by the Colorado School of Mines and many other educational institutions. And with that, I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, unfortunately, I guess because it's Saturday, we're a little light on testimony. But we did have companies come to the education committee, and one gentleman in particular was saying that they were looking for engineers, and they were hiring different types of engineers because they couldn't find nuclear engineers, and that's what they were really looking for. So there's already a demand for jobs. Also want to say that nuclear jobs are well-paying jobs. It is a good option for people transitioning from coal, and it's also a good option for people who maybe want to transition out of renewables like solar that, frankly, just don't pay as much. and this bill is supported by the Clean Air Task Force, Climate Jobs Colorado, the FL-CIO, and the IBEW. And I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sponsors, just to let you know and to follow the lead of our colleague who has a lot of integrity on this committee. I'm looking past the policy, and I will vote yes simply because of the fiscal nature in which you're trying to raise money for this. But I will be a no on the floor.

I move Senate Bill.

I move Senate Bill 26045 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Appropriations. You are. Still got a vote.

Second.

Give us a second. We want to triple check this. this. Okay. We've triple checked. Second by Representative Hartsook. Please pull the committee. Representatives Brooks.

Garcia.

Marshall? Yes. Stewart? Yes. Winter? Yes.

Mr. Chair? Yes, that passes 9-2. Committee, this includes our business and house finance and possibly is our last meeting. We're not exactly sure yet. They've got their cards. How about we do it on the floor later? Anyways, Until then, until we know more, finance stands adjourned. Thank you.