[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6277193,"mediaKeyId","2656884-972c09b364e6f2d646a624b7094db953","parentId",2656884,"title","Joint Budget Committee backs 2.5% across‑the‑board pay, approves 1.5% salary‑base reduction and 88/12 health premium split","audioSeconds",80,"startMs",3053000,"endMs",3133000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2656884-972c09b364e6f2d646a624b7094db953&start=3053&end=3133","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2656884-972c09b364e6f2d646a624b7094db953/thumbnail_3053000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6277193/Colorado/Joint-Budget-Committee-backs-25-acrosstheboard-pay-approves-15-salarybase-reduction-and-8812-health-premium-split","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6277193-bf51ba705c96d85bd26e44c7b90dbf9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140361&Signature=M9wYUhJVC~JxmoVUg12W68ErbWjoed2RT~Iqj5ZDllSxnC2fQGKdMbT-FytvvsCHMx7GZubTxF4YWIXqo0sKmqEzSawVAWVWQZgh6-G5U8S3Q13TWf4CqrYaeuhikpbugOEnfVhr4xG3613ziukaD4pxpxouRdZGcD6brH5WhPMQ-1TysX2ywgeEcWiaRvB6F2fTQYGdr1BZBbT5eBUuql-3EpOaC5gQP3-nYDkwksEpkKzu1ekxjKI3FU2~sOHQTuBLHYu1-UjRsAeVP4EQ~kbmdlfRKNT4fXe1tO0dji-vS2ARV004GezZQQO2tzuXNsFDoW6zX~wPONdXy~h89g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Colorado State Legislature","date","2025-03-12T00:00:00Z","article","DENVER — The Joint Budget Committee on March 11 approved core elements of the governor’s compensation package for fiscal 2025–26, including a 2.5% across‑the‑board salary increase and preservation of the negotiated step plan while also adopting a 1.5% reduction to the personnel salary base intended to capture vacancy savings.

The committee voted unanimously to adopt the staff recommendation for a 2.5% across‑the‑board increase and the 0.6% step‑plan adjustment that together form the administration’s broad salary survey proposal. Those actions were paired with a separate unanimous vote to apply a 1.5% reduction to the base salary line — a calculation staff said is intended to reflect anticipated vacancy savings rather than direct cuts to individual pay.

Why it matters: The combination of base building (the 2.5% and the step increase) and the one‑time base reduction changes the pace at which the state’s total pay bill grows. The 1.5% base reduction lowers the starting point used to calculate future base‑building increases and, according to staff calculations, is expected to reduce general‑fund costs by millions in 2025–26 while still allowing pay increases this year.

Key details
- Staff recommendation: 2.5% across‑the‑board increase plus 0.6% for step‑plan movement; committee approved both 6‑0.
- Base reduction: The committee approved a 1.5% reduction applied to the base salary continuation amount; the motion passed 6‑0. Staff and the governor’s office explained the reduction is being implemented largely through vacancy savings and program exclusions (24/7 facilities, program lines with fewer than 20 FTE, and enterprise funds).
- Health, life and dental: The committee shifted the employer/employee premium split from 100% state absorption of premium increases to an 88/12 split; the motion passed 6‑0. Staff said the change was negotiated between the governor’s office and executive branch stakeholders and would apply to the executive branch premium treatment.

What staff said: \"My understanding is there was no base reduction contemplated in the original agreement,\" said Director Harper, describing how the 1.5% was negotiated to be captured through vacancy savings rather than by reducing individual salaries. He added that the agreement between the governor’s office and other parties limits reopening the broader compensation negotiations if implemented through vacancy savings.

What some committee members said: Representative Taggart said he would withhold support for parts of the package until the revenue forecast and further cuts are known. Senator Kirkmeyer pressed staff on long‑term effects of resetting the base and asked whether the change would be annualized back into future salary calculations.

Budget effect and next steps: Staff estimated the base reduction will lower 2025–26 general‑fund obligations for total compensation by several million dollars while preserving the pay increases negotiated for employees. The committee directed staff to finalize department allocations and exclusions (24/7, <20 FTE program lines, enterprise funds) and to continue working with judicial branch counterparts to harmonize calculations for agencies outside the executive branch.

Ending note: Committee members said the package reflects a compromise between preserving salary increases and finding one‑time savings to fit the state’s tighter revenue outlook; staff will reflect the decisions in the figure‑setting documents and departmental line‑item detail.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Budget Committee [Mar 12, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","The Joint Budget Committee approved a 2.5% across‑the‑board pay increase and a 1.5% salary‑base reduction intended to capture vacancy savings, and moved the state to an 88/12 employer/employee split for health, life and dental premiums.","taxTitle","Joint Budget Committee, YEAR-ROUND COMMITTEES, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",45208,"location","Colorado","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6277183,"Joint Budget Committee sets aside $150 million in general fund for school finance, urges fuller plan for State Education Fund",3261,5493000,8754000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2656884-972c09b364e6f2d646a624b7094db953&start=5493&end=8754","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2656884-972c09b364e6f2d646a624b7094db953/thumbnail_5493000.jpg","/articles/6277183/Colorado/Joint-Budget-Committee-sets-aside-150-million-in-general-fund-for-school-finance-urges-fuller-plan-for-State-Education-Fund","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6277183-cbe530fa096c69cdf7f1055d9e853a30/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140361&Signature=lNncD64XutFegTYW59wzAiE-6Qt1m6E81j83gANHhQFFqs61~l2FpgnTrT5WJDOxJGPwAPBBTUvp67ul5uYZpBhXFGIYaI6Ro-KhkcBrSIsyKY2yya3gAghWpFEMn3A2e5M3NI4l0MWB5MAnTHgVBypAbZ4u-cwSzgrHf11~tniAliV~c6yBAXgUIzrJd3kyK4IViySO~nbg~QpLOR1WPFjZN~6i54SpyOqUX81rVhk-2X1AiuSKi797-1YSY3QJUB6aP3uTQMlEw9ggCvvlR2yw2SA5uR-yf5KTlCiSk7plUqW3CZ8wuXC8RkbCwtB2SMfTGOzfJaP5Fq4AFyqsuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","DENVER — The Joint Budget Committee voted to set aside $150 million in general fund for the state's share of total program for fiscal 2025–26 and circulated a staff sustainability plan that warns current versions of the new school‑finance formula will deplete the State Education Fund under present projections.

Action taken: The committee unanimously approved a motion to set aside $150 million in general fund for the state’s share of total program; the motion passed 6‑0. The committee clarified that the $150 million was intended to be the general‑fund increase for school finance for the coming year.

Why it matters: Colorado’s school‑finance framework is in transition after the 2024 School Finance Act. House Bill 1448 included new formula mechanics and freeze/trigger language tied to State Education Fund transfers. Staff reported significant uncertainty in the forecasts and two differing legal opinions about whether a statutory trigger has been met; the committee must include either the old formula or the new formula consistent with the law when it drafts the long bill.

Staff findings and recommendation
- Ms. Ewell (Joint Budget Committee staff) presented a sustainability plan analyzing scenarios: (1) revert to the old formula, (2) implement the new formula as written, (3) governor’s adjusted proposal that slows averaging changes, and (4) a variant using three‑year averaging with a different phase‑in. The plan models the State Education Fund balance through 2028–29 under each scenario.
- Staff said implementing the new formula as written would require general‑fund increases much larger than the committee may be able to sustain; the governor’s package reduces near‑term cost but still requires sizable general‑fund contributions in later years.
- For balancing simplicity and to maintain a minimum State Education Fund target (staff used $100 million as a floor), staff recommended the committee set aside $150 million in general fund now and direct education‑policy committees and bill sponsors to develop a school‑finance proposal that produces savings comparable to the governor’s recommendation.

Committee debate: Several members said they were committed to avoiding a return to a negative budget stabilization factor for K‑12 and urged that any policy changes protect the State Education Fund. Members asked staff and legal counsel to clarify the statutory trigger language before the long‑bill introduction; staff said the March revenue forecast is unlikely to materially alter the near‑term legal analysis.

Next steps: The committee asked staff to circulate the sustainability plan and to ask education committees, bill sponsors and LCS to develop a legislative approach that yields similar or greater savings to the governor’s package. Staff will use the $150 million figure to construct the long bill while the legal question about the statutory trigger is resolved.

Ending note: Committee members emphasized the constitutional priority of K‑12 funding and signaled they expect the education policy process to propose structural changes and program adjustments to keep the State Education Fund solvent through the phase‑in period.","The Joint Budget Committee set aside $150 million in general fund for the state's share of total program while debating how to implement the new school finance formula and seeking a sustainability plan to protect the State Education Fund.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6277188,"Joint Budget Committee approves Office of the State Public Defender increase after 4‑2 vote",19,1832000,1851000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2656884-972c09b364e6f2d646a624b7094db953&start=1832&end=1851","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2656884-972c09b364e6f2d646a624b7094db953/thumbnail_1832000.jpg","/articles/6277188/Colorado/Joint-Budget-Committee-approves-Office-of-the-State-Public-Defender-increase-after-42-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6277188-b3f2491cd18a1ca34ca020622eba28e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140361&Signature=cFH4Y8-Pflagxsa-CGIUfV-qOjCXBgIjKX34hIPs1lMX2V5RSdmYbUTGUnRKEyquSMnWv-LHgVLkcoqsT~Ze1Jtd63JFkL9WIyVWZzJSmfhcgpScpFAqtSo-mAk8a6erMnl1BdNG-~XgWwLuQSlG6FyePPa7TPoIwzOKN2A2Y7G9EVTWcSE-tzQd6siToOjI2UHgyaJhfIVqDqNW5ZE~ziyyFdpr3~EtWaoB-~aNjOwilAXQNvaUWla14VjWdS7KYNIB2Xb7nv-94lPGkfjah48NjdqCyelk8eZ1F8IfCuVsmJbshGzvz0jZss3m9xQSSiWD4m075ZF3ZCR7Doq9ng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","DENVER — After debate over retention pressures and parity with other judicial offices, the Joint Budget Committee narrowly approved staff’s recommended pay action for the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD).

The committee approved the staff recommendation to provide a total compensation increase for OSPD that effectively brings the office to a 3.5% overall salary increase this year, rather than the 5.7% the office requested. Staff said the office’s original request layered a 3.5% step increase on top of the 2.5% across‑the‑board increase, producing the larger number; staff recommended a smaller step increase so the total would be 3.5%.

Why it mattered: OSPD told the committee it faces retention issues and that a targeted compensation plan was intended to keep junior staff. Committee members split on whether public defenders should receive a larger increase than other judicial employees.

Votes and outcome
- Motion: Move staff recommendation for the OSPD requested increase.
- Result: Motion passed, 4‑2. Representative Taggart and Senator Kirkmeyer objected.

Key points from the meeting
- \"I appreciate that this is a lot less than what they were asking for, but it's still an increase,\" said Representative Taggart as he announced his opposition, adding he wanted to see the forecast and the broader tradeoffs before supporting additional increases.
- Mr. Burmeister, the Joint Budget Committee staff presenter, said the recommended step adjustment would bring OSPD to 3.5% total and that the department had documented retention concerns among employees who have been at the office less than five years.

Budget impact: Staff estimated that reducing the office’s request from 5.7% to 3.5% saved roughly $3.2 million in general fund compared with the higher request.

Next steps: Staff will incorporate the committee’s decision into the figure‑setting document and departmental line‑item detail for the long bill.","The committee approved staff’s recommendation for a smaller increase for the Office of the State Public Defender than requested by the office. The vote was 4‑2 with Representatives Taggart and Senator Kirkmeyer objecting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Joint Budget Committee backs 2.5% across‑the‑board pay, approves 1.5% salary‑base reduction and 88/12 health premium split

Joint Budget Committee sets aside $150 million in general fund for school finance, urges fuller plan for State Education Fund

Joint Budget Committee approves Office of the State Public Defender increase after 4‑2 vote