Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate budget caucus debates wide set of amendments to trim spending and bolster reserves
Summary
Colorado Senate budget caucus reviewed dozens of amendments that would shift millions from agency programs into the general fund or reserve, with proposals touching healthcare, corrections, energy, tourism and state employee pay.
Members of the Senate Joint Budget Committee caucus spent the meeting reviewing a broad packet of amendments aimed at trimming spending across state government and redirecting funds to the general fund or contingency reserve.
The session, led by caucus chair Senator Kirkmeyer, centered on proposed line‑item reductions and substitutions that would move money from programs including an animal welfare division, environmental justice positions and various agency initiatives into reserves or reallocated priorities. Senator Lundin, the caucus minority leader, described the approach as “tightening the belt” in multiple areas of the budget while seeking to preserve core services. “We want to damp down recidivism. We want to do everything we can to improve the circumstance and help people to find a better pathway forward as they matriculate out of corrections,” Lundin said while discussing a corrections education trim.
Why it matters: The packet of amendments touches many program areas and would change spending priorities across multiple departments if adopted. Several senators said they were seeking modest percentage cuts to specific line items rather than wholesale program eliminations, framing many of the changes as part of a larger effort to prioritize the general fund reserve during a tighter forecast.
Most proposals were presented as substitutions or line‑item strikes rather than final, binding votes at this meeting. Senators described a mix of targeted reductions — for example, reducing marketing and promotion contracts, pausing certain program expansions, and eliminating newly created positions — and one‑time transfers out of cash funds. Sponsors repeatedly said they planned to “whip” support and count votes before attempting to move amendments forward to the full committee.
Several themes recurred in debate: restoring or protecting specific services (notably a maternity program referenced by multiple senators), shifting one‑time savings to the national cybersecurity center, and reducing funding for offices and programs tied to environmental justice, DEI, or other policy priorities. Senators also publicly discussed measures affecting internal legislative compensation and state employee pay increases.
Quotes from the meeting capture the tone of the session: Senator Liston said he was “just trying to find some money for the National Cybersecurity Center,” while Senator Kirkmeyer and others emphasized process points and staff support for members walking through amendment language.
The caucus did not record final floor votes on these amendments during the meeting; sponsors said they would continue to gather support and, where available, noted when they believed they had at least 18 senators ready to back a change.
For now the meeting functioned chiefly as a forum for amendment introductions and initial questioning; several senators asked staff for line‑item breakdowns and talking points to refine proposals before formal consideration.
Looking ahead: Sponsors said they plan to continue counting votes, refine language with staff, and present successful amendments to the full Joint Budget Committee for formal action. Several proposals — particularly ones reallocating modest amounts across many programs — were framed as intended to be net positive for the reserve position in the current fiscal cycle.
