Colorado Legislature Opens Special Session With Taxes and Spending Bills

By Marianne Goodland | The Denver Gazette

Colorado legislators began to advance proposals dealing with an $800 million budget shortfall on Thursday, just hours after the legislature officially re-convened to deal with the revenue shortfall. 

They started with a hearing on Senate Bill 1, which adds a requirement to the existing state law that outlines the governor’s authority to make spending reductions in case of a significant drop in revenue.

Under SB 1, Gov. Jared Polis would be required to develop a plan and present it to the Joint Budget Committee before it goes into effect.

Lawmakers and the Polis administration have indicated that budget cuts should be put into place by Sept. 1 in order to spread out any reductions over 10 months, instead of waiting until next February, when budget adjustments to the current spending plan are typically made.

Mark Ferrandino, director of the governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting, testified in favor of the measure and told lawmakers that using the state’s general fund reserve, about $2.2 billion, to cover the shortfall would put Colorado in a precarious position should even a moderate recession take place in the coming year. The state agency has predicted a 50% chance of a moderate recession in the following year. 

The general fund reserve is required by law to stand at 15% of general fund expenditures, as dictated by the current year’s state budget.

No one else testified in favor of or against SB 1, which Joint Budget Committee member Rep. Judy Amabile, D-Boulder, and Senate President James Coleman of Denver, authored. The committee made no amendments and approved the measure on a party-line 3-2 vote.

Its next stop is the full Senate for debate.

Both sides have good ideas, and both sides should be utilized, but Republicans were left out of the discussion, according to Sen. Rod Pelton, R-Cheyenne Wells.

Proposal shifts wolf funding to pay for health insurance 

The next bill, which deals with Colorado’s wolf reintroduction program, saw more fireworks, with more than 50 witnesses signing up to testify.

Senate Bill 5, sponsored by Sens. Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco and Marc Catlin, R-Montrose, would shift $264,000 from the wolf program to the Health Insurance Affordability Enterprise to help cover the subsidies that would be lost as a result of the federal budget.

The federal budget ends enhanced premium tax credits used to purchase health insurance on the state’s exchange.

The topic of health insurance premiums is a sore one on the Western Slope, where premiums are expected to rise by 38% in 2026. 

The cut in funding to the wolf program is about 10% of its annual appropriation. Under Roberts’ proposal, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) would not be able to bring in more wolves. The balance of the agency’s funding would be used for conflict minimization efforts and to pay for depredation claims. 

Polis has indicated he is not in favor of the bill, and a veto threat hangs over the measure.

Roberts discussed an amendment to ban the wildlife agency from using general fund dollars to bring in more wolves, which he said reflects a compromise with the Polis administration. That, however, would not prohibit the agency from raising money from gifts, grants, or donations to bring in more of the apex predators.

Sen. Matt Ball, D-Denver, who offered the amendment, said it is his understanding that CPW has access to non-taxpayer dollars to bring in more wolves.

Roberts described his bill as fiscally responsible. 

The cost of the program has increased — Roberts noted the General Assembly Blue Book estimated an annual expense of $800,000. In 2024-25, the price tag was $3.5 million.

CPW has reported that the cost of the program over five years is more than $8 million.

“We want to see the wolf program succeed,” Catlin told the committee.

This bill would allow the program to take a breath at a time when CPW’s reputation is in tatters, he said.

Catlin said there’s also precedent for a pause. In the early 2000s, the state’s lynx program, which he said is now successful, was briefly put on pause after “hard releases” of lynx resulted in the deaths of four due to starvation.

The Gunnison County Stockgrowers, represented by Greg Peterson, said it is critical to put a pause in place for current releases in the north and future releases in the south. There are no management efforts in place in the southern release area, with the release of wolves expected just a few months from now, Peterson said.

Tim Ritschard, a fifth-generation rancher who heads the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association in Grand County, said his producers know well the impact of wolves. Three producers in Grand County submitted claims for lost and dead livestock for 2024 for more than $575,000 — $225,000 more than the state has budgeted.

He said he believes claims in 2025 will exceed those in 2024.

Doug Bruchez of Grand County, another fifth-generation rancher, said improvements have been made, but much more must be done to make the program successful.

There are a lot more wolves in this state than is being reported, he said, not just the wolves brought to Colorado. He said he is disappointed in the amendment, as the bill as drafted could have saved millions of dollars for the state, referring to the depredation costs.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT THE DENVER GAZETTE