[{"_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",6134121,"mediaKeyId","5687435-649d0042891818c418e4c8e981835804","parentId",5687435,"title","Appropriations Committee advances repeal of small‑business vendor fee as part of special‑session budget fixes","audioSeconds",4426,"startMs",2288380,"endMs",6715000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5687435-649d0042891818c418e4c8e981835804&start=2288&end=6715","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5687435-649d0042891818c418e4c8e981835804/thumbnail_2288380.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6134121/Colorado/Appropriations-Committee-advances-repeal-of-smallbusiness-vendor-fee-as-part-of-specialsession-budget-fixes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6134121-2da93aba2f6a708eb3c6d892b7c2ab9d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447575&Signature=nedmapnfEP2yvI16F9T8wtDkNis~kVTjfj3eNfPbl6QM2qJuQVkUJ2T5tqw1VxkykcnCksSoMxsJIcEMLlJXk6HZ03CeOYO0SLvONO1sXEdK5cu8PkafUNfJk5RLwbevXM~ZIwFEsrCu-SwtDHFYnfVa2RLxP8LX-WYva47EnvRV8Y2y4uZ-gmzGh4TvmlRLetrEPLLFyYwApgVgE72adyAHku~5r~1yWM2H~b2g7mousY353Zupj8x3c9y1ZQmiw-kllKisEFTpF8CNVGPMkqWRQvvwd9HTFDSpzR6V~xbKtGqaEun9tTe4ef4xTZjWN7Zx8qbQ0cGE~uBfmeZrTw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Colorado State Legislature","date","2025-08-24T00:00:00Z","article","House Bill 1,005 would repeal the vendor fee — an allowance that lets businesses retain a small portion of state sales tax they collect — and redirect roughly $56.8 million back to the state’s budget, sponsors said. Senator Kipp, a sponsor who described her work on the Sales and Use Tax Simplification (SUTS) effort, told the committee the vendor fee dates to 1939 and is now an “outdated practice” that other states have eliminated. “This vendor discount was created in 1939, before there were calculators… Today, sales tax compliance is largely digital,” Kipp said.

Sponsor rationale and fiscal context: Supporters framed the repeal as a necessary budget‑balancing step after major federal tax changes (sponsors referred to H.R. 1) that they said will reduce state revenue and shift costs to states. Senator Winter, co‑sponsor, told the committee that the vendor fee averages about $80 a month for a small business and argued the savings from federal changes dwarf the vendor fee: “Is it worth losing your child's teacher for $80 a month?” she asked, urging members to prioritize K‑12 pay and Medicaid.

Testimony and opposition: The hearing drew substantial industry testimony and written input. The Colorado Restaurant Association, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and multiple individual small business owners opposed the bill, urging the committee to preserve the allowance as a modest compensation for businesses’ compliance costs. Michael Smith of NFIB said small businesses “wear many hats and unpaid tax collector shouldn't be one of them,” and Nick Hoover of the Colorado Restaurant Association described sharp cost pressures — higher rent, utilities, food and labor — and warned that removing the allowance would be “another cost” for struggling restaurants.

Policy details and clarifications: Witnesses and sponsors discussed program mechanics: the vendor fee lets businesses retain up to 4% of the state’s 2.9% sales tax with a $1,000 cap per filing period in current law. Several witnesses suggested mitigations if repeal proceeds, including a temporary phase‑out, relief for first‑time filers, and additional investments in SUTS tools to simplify remittance and compliance. Greer Bailey (Colorado Wyoming Fuel Marketers) asked for either a temporary repeal or transitional relief and urged that software and compliance costs be considered in any change. Several testifiers asked that departments offer limited penalty relief for first‑time filers during a transition period.

Equity and economic arguments: Anti‑poverty advocates and fiscal analysts urged repeal to preserve services. Charles Brennan of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy and Caroline Nutter of the Colorado Fiscal Institute said the state should prioritize public programs and that the vendor fee disproportionately benefits certain retailers. Health‑sector advocates said preserving Medicaid funding reduces broader economic harm; Adam Fox of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative described Medicaid as an “economic multiplier” and warned of job losses and service reductions if federal and state funding decline.

Committee action: After stakeholder testimony and sponsor remarks, the committee moved HB 1,005 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried on a roll call vote, 5–2. The committee considered, but did not adopt at the hearing, amendments to phase or delay repeal; several witnesses urged a temporary or phased approach and the sponsors said they would pursue stakeholder work after passage.

Distinguishing discussion from action: The committee’s vote advances policy for floor consideration; sponsors and stakeholders agreed to continue stakeholder meetings on implementation details and potential business relief measures if repeal proceeds.

Ending note: HB 1,005 passed the committee 5–2 and now advances to the Committee of the Whole; sponsors said they will continue working with small‑business groups and revenue agencies to detail transitional supports and administrative changes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Appropriations [Aug 24, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 1,005 would repeal Colorado’s vendor fee — the small allowance paid to retailers for collecting state sales tax — generating an estimated $56.8 million to help close the state budget gap.","taxTitle","Appropriations, Standing Committees, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",15034,"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},6134126,"Senate committee approves sale of premium tax credits to raise $100 million for general fund",2249,38540,2288000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5687435-649d0042891818c418e4c8e981835804&start=38&end=2288","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5687435-649d0042891818c418e4c8e981835804/thumbnail_38540.jpg","/articles/6134126/Colorado/Senate-committee-approves-sale-of-premium-tax-credits-to-raise-100-million-for-general-fund","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6134126-89581af31d2a164d2bd19034ff972899/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447575&Signature=Z6SHXafkI63pW~OiRVSGhigMJ5IzgqxgIfcwzGuBv8TDWMPLWOV1~jGFxmmph3i3w37IMvmg66jD1av9b~zjO8-lGdVVJjkT5WqxTd81s8apQIQXjbIT7vKqBW9Ot~HCM5gIMKOkbqRaoo5bhfeT4suOiMmsNJ25-6VGCduqubPDG-GtZmxjRzvqXG09qxX9M4ZiOPX-Geza~sr5LOMrcLAXDTmsb78fZ~jF9UxgXMSybPKa6HKolbzPIERNtcqnW3cuEfecO3vzVMY-xhjjRGnWKofb-9sXFqsXXM8PJ1zYz3iMIMx7NEkbDmveWfKch8AaQdRRe6lLH6IcEC4bTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1,004 would authorize the Colorado Department of the Treasury to sell up to $125 million of insurance premium tax credits and income tax credits for C corporations through a competitive bidding process, generating an estimated $100 million in cash for the general fund this fiscal year. Senator Marchman, the bill sponsor, told the committee the sale is “a simple and responsible bridge for this year's budget.”

The bill’s supporters said the sale would not create a tax increase or new debt and that Treasury would not accept bids below an amended floor of 80 cents per $1 of credit. “HB 1,004 is a pragmatic, transparent, and fast to implement solution,” Marchman said, asking for the committee’s support. Leah Marvin Riley, policy director for the Department of Treasury, told members the department would engage a third‑party vendor to run the competitive sale and that issuance and setup costs — about $3,170,000 this year in Treasury’s estimate — would be paid from sale proceeds rather than the general fund.

Why it matters: Sponsors said the cash will provide near‑term budget stability for K‑12 classrooms, wildfire readiness and core local services. Marchman and other backers said the structure spreads the long‑term revenue impact across future years, but acknowledged that selling credits now reduces revenue in later years — the fiscal note estimated up to about $75 million lower revenue next year and up to $50 million the following year under one claim pattern. The committee and witnesses repeatedly discussed the interaction with refund obligations under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR).

What the committee heard: Proponents framed the bill as a market‑based tool to convert future credits into current cash. Senator Snyder described it as “a good market based solution” and said expanding eligible buyers to C corporations should broaden demand while aiming not to undercut the existing affordable housing tax credit market. Treasury staff emphasized reporting requirements and consultation with the Office of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) on when buyers may claim credits. Leah Marvin Riley said Treasury has used similar financing tools in the past and would “ensure a transparent, competitive, and fair allocation of tax credits to the market while maintaining public trust and maximizing return to the state.”

Concerns raised: Committee members pushed sponsors on possible effects on existing affordable housing tax credits and on legislative oversight of when buyers may claim credits. Senator Kirk Meyer asked why the Joint Budget Committee (JBC) would not have a formal role in selecting the calendar years when credits may be claimed; sponsors said Treasury and OSPB would set the claim schedule and provide reporting to the legislature but that the sale process itself would be handled by Treasury and a third‑party underwriter. Members also sought detail on the likely discount rates bidders would accept; sponsors and witnesses gave market estimates and cautioned that some sales could fall below the 80% floor while maintaining an average at or above that level.

Public comment and administration testimony: Natalie Menton, a resident testifying in opposition, said she was concerned about the risk to TABOR refunds and described the sale as “borrowing.” Treasury’s debt manager and policy director both told the committee the transaction carries borrowing‑like tradeoffs but that, in Treasury’s view, the size and structure of this one‑time sale are unlikely to threaten the state’s credit rating if implemented as proposed.

Formal action and next steps: The committee adopted sponsor amendments that (1) allow issuance and administrative costs to be paid from sale proceeds, (2) raise the per‑issuance floor from 75% to 80%, (3) create a cash fund to receive proceeds (to be transferred to the general fund), and (4) correct a prior fiscal appropriation error (J3). Senator Marchman moved the bill with amendments; the committee approved the measure and amendments on a recorded vote, 5–2, and sent HB 1,004 to the Committee of the Whole.

Discussion versus decision: The committee’s approval is a formal decision to advance the bill; debate in committee included both program details (how auctioning and scheduling of claims would work) and policy concerns (long‑term revenue tradeoffs and TABOR interactions). Treasury agreed to provide reporting and said third‑party costs would be borne from proceeds.

Context and limits: The committee repeatedly noted that selling credits converts future tax benefits into present cash and that the long‑term fiscal picture depends on how purchasers claim credits over several years. The bill does not create new taxes and, as amended, leaves discretion with Treasury on timing, subject to reporting and other statutory requirements.

Ending note: With the committee’s approval the bill advances to the Committee of the Whole; sponsors and Treasury staff said they would supply follow‑up detail to the JBC and committee members about scheduling and reporting as the process moves forward.","House Bill 1,004 would authorize the Department of Treasury to sell up to $125 million of tax credits to generate about $100 million in cash for the general fund this fiscal year.",{"_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},6134115,"Appropriations Committee advances AI oversight bill after narrow vote; OIT and agencies flag multi‑million IT costs",2055,7200000,9255000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5687435-649d0042891818c418e4c8e981835804&start=7200&end=9255","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5687435-649d0042891818c418e4c8e981835804/thumbnail_7200000.jpg","/articles/6134115/Colorado/Appropriations-Committee-advances-AI-oversight-bill-after-narrow-vote-OIT-and-agencies-flag-multimillion-IT-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6134115-fbe132f3874bcce510c8929a94f44cca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447575&Signature=QecSu148tQjYo7~FJmf5IUZWZ463yeaUtDDD-6Y5cCsWjvo~dDxOtGPI4MvIfP2jmQoBUBUpZoXwXsLsmb55W1jiE-iyEtOOLpCxq2VhuRkInBi0G171mALABA90KVMscNOPHtyvqgnFZS2z6Y6xCW2VmX8VPxNeHwXAWpejgljKiwWPBRf1SPb1ERTxpHrZJjdNzw-X0yK~4yEvRBjjhRNaAwuFpWPWYlpR-anaqcKmUFwCMSKpvUynjln9tE007917jgcm6GIUuKUG3gaTQtvGPBs8w18S5n5W3pk0Lla6AadzTS2zM9BSsy-qurAzXDZh-qlWjydldqythFqJJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 4, which would regulate certain government uses of artificial intelligence and require disclosures and safeguards, advanced from the Appropriations Committee after a close vote and several sponsor amendments. Committee members adopted technical and scope‑narrowing amendments (L11, L18, L20) and the J‑amendment consolidating fiscal adjustments (J6); the final committee vote was 4–3.

Bill purpose and sponsor intent: The sponsor said SB 4 seeks to limit use of automated or algorithmic decision‑making for “consequential” government actions without disclosure, to require transparency, and to set standards for procurement and data handling. The majority leader and other sponsors described the bill as necessary to ensure human oversight and transparency when state agencies use automated tools that affect health care, benefits, supervision or other covered services.

Fiscal and implementation concerns: Legislative Council and the governor’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) told the committee the bill, as drafted, applies to numerous existing state systems and would require centralized OIT staff and additional agency IT resources. LCS staff reported a preliminary appropriation need of about $2,667,747 general fund for fiscal year 2025–26 to stand up OIT and agency resources; staff said the out‑year cost could rise to approximately $5.6 million and 40.3 FTE. OIT’s legislative liaison explained the centralized billing model the office uses and said some costs are distributed back to affected agencies; OIT offered to provide department‑level breakdowns on request. John Armstrong of Legislative Council said the earlier fiscal note for a prior draft did not include agency information because the bill’s scope was less clear; changes to definitions and coverage raised projected costs.

Scope adjustments and judicial concerns: Senator Gonzalez and others proposed L18 to exclude judicial probation assessment tools (LSI tools) and other statutorily required supervision assessments that are human‑driven, removing them from coverage. Sponsors said the exclusion was intended to avoid sweeping in judicial probation tools that predate the bill and are not an AI procurement the bill was intended to regulate. The committee adopted that amendment.

Schedule and additional time: Sponsors added L20 to move the bill’s effective policy date to May 1, 2026 (from February 26 in an earlier draft) to allow additional stakeholder work and agency preparation. Sponsor and committee members described further interagency negotiation as necessary because agencies use different systems and funding sources to operate affected tools.

Concerns from members: Several senators said the fiscal note remains incomplete and that the administration should provide a clearer split of general fund versus federal and cash fund impacts by agency. Senator Kirk Meyer objected to advancing the bill without a more detailed funding plan and expressed concern that agencies with heavy federal funding (for example, Health Care Policy & Financing) should use federal or cash funds where permissible rather than relying on general fund appropriations. Others argued that advancing the bill now would permit continued negotiations and refinement, and that failing to move it would stall needed transparency work.

Committee action and outcome: The committee approved L11 (technical/clarifying), L18 (judicial carve‑out), and L20 (effective‑date change), and adopted J6 (consolidated fiscal adjustments); the committee passed the bill 4–3 and sent it forward to the Committee of the Whole. The vote and the discussion highlighted persistent disagreement about scope, funding and implementation timing.

Implementation risk and next steps: Legislative Council, OIT and affected agencies will need to produce department‑level cost breakdowns and to identify allowable funding sources (general fund, federal, or cash funds) for the staff and technical work needed to comply with SB 4. Sponsors and staff said they expect continued interagency discussions and possible technical changes on the House floor or in conference.","Senate Bill 4, an AI governance and transparency measure, cleared Appropriations on a narrow 4–3 vote after sponsors narrowed scope and committee staff flagged multi‑million dollar IT costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appropriations Committee advances repeal of small‑business vendor fee as part of special‑session budget fixes

Senate committee approves sale of premium tax credits to raise $100 million for general fund

Appropriations Committee advances AI oversight bill after narrow vote; OIT and agencies flag multi‑million IT costs