JBC members press CDC on why DOC fire-safety project ranked below shower renovations

Members of the Joint Budget Committee on Tuesday pressed the Capital Development Committee (CDC) to explain why the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center (DRDC) fire-protection project ranked lower on CDClist than a phased renovation of critical living-unit showers, drains and toilets at corrections facilities.

The exchange began after lawmakers said they had heard directly from Department of Corrections officials that the DRDC fire protection project was more urgent for operations and safety than the shower-phase work. Rep. Taggart asked CDC members why the DRDC item appeared lower on the committeelist.

CDC members described a deliberate effort to favor continuation projects and controlled maintenance so ongoing work is not left incomplete. "We really did look at those continuation projects and wanted to make sure that we weren't leaving people kind of in the middle of a project and not being able to finish it," one CDC member said. The committee also noted tradition and past practice shaped priority-setting: continuation projects often rise because the CDC views them as commitments to finish phased work.

Several members pushed back. Rep. Taggart and others asked whether any single phased project could be delayed without disruption; CDC members said they did not think it appropriate to single out a specific continuation project from the mic. Senator Mullica and others said they had tried to move controlled maintenance higher and had not secured enough votes to place it at No. 1, but had raised it as high as possible.

CDC members acknowledged there is very little capital budget available this year and emphasized the trade-offs. "We have maybe $150,000,000 to spend" out of requests totaling substantially more, one member said, noting the committee is funding a small share of total need. Several lawmakers also asked whether the CDC had used the Office of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) ranking or the department's stated preferences; the CDC replied it used a mix of continuation-commitment logic and member discussion.

Why it matters: Lawmakers said they were trying to understand the CDCpriorities to reconcile department needs with a constrained capital budget. Members signaled willingness to revisit individual items with DOC if the departmentprovides clearer technical information about safety risk or phasing constraints.

Discussion vs. decisions: Committee members did not take a binding vote to reorder the CDC list during the hearing. Several members asked staff and CDC members to follow up with DOC for more technical detail and said they would consider follow-up conversations; no formal change was recorded at the meeting.

Ending note: The exchange underscored the practical constraint lawmakers face when statutory or programmatic needs exceed available capital funding — and the difficulty of reconciling agenciespriorities with the committee's preference to complete continuation projects.