Pierce Lively and Conrad Immel of the Office of Legislative Legal Services briefed the Joint Budget Committee on the legal authorities the governor may use if state revenues prove insufficient.

Lively summarized three statutory paths staff had reviewed. He said that §24‑75‑201.5 (the reserve plan statute) requires the governor to prepare a reduction plan when the OSPB quarterly revenue estimate shows the reserve would fall to one half of its required amount or below $1 billion. Lively noted that the statute is explicit about the trigger: "the revenue estimate … provided in June, September, December, and March" — meaning it cannot be triggered outside that forecast schedule.

Conrad Immel described the broader but less specific authority in §24‑2‑102, which permits the governor, "in the exercise of his discretion by executive order," to "suspend or discontinue in whole or in part the functions or services of any department" when the governor determines revenues are insufficient. Immel said the statute allows such an executive order to take effect on the first day of the calendar month following the order and to last up to three months; governors have used successive executive orders in past budget emergencies to extend and refine actions.

Lively and Immel emphasized a key ambiguity: §24‑2‑102 does not specify what evidence or forecast must support the governor's determination. A century‑old Colorado case quoted by staff treats the governor's initial determination as a non‑justiciable matter of executive discretion, leaving substantive contest over the decision difficult in court. At the same time, the attorneys said, courts can and do review the lawfulness of particular executive reductions once challenged.

The committee also heard about §24‑51‑109.5, which limits its scope to personnel actions and requires a joint resolution declaring a fiscal emergency; that route requires legislative action before the governor may proceed under the statute.

JBC staff director Amanda Bickel recommended statutory clarifications to improve transparency and legislative involvement. Bickel suggested lowering the threshold in §24‑75‑201.5 from the historical "one half the reserve" toward a smaller, more actionable percentage (she mentioned in discussion "more like 2% or maybe 3% of appropriations" as an example) and also recommended adding clearer requirements for a plan and for a required submission to the legislature before significant actions are implemented under §24‑2‑102. She warned, however, that statutes should preserve executive flexibility for genuine emergencies.

Committee members asked about the practical effects. Immel and Lively said that an executive order under §24‑2‑102 can be issued at any time, take effect at the start of the next month and be renewed through successive executive orders; §24‑75‑201.5 cannot be relied on until the next OSPB quarterly estimate because it points specifically to those forecasts. Several members urged that any executive action be accompanied by consultation or at least a requirement that the governor present a plan to the Joint Budget Committee before large program suspensions go into effect.

Ending: The committee directed staff to prepare draft statutory language and options. Members asked Legislative Legal Services and JBC staff to return with concrete bill language that would require earlier notice, a clear planning submission to the legislature and a lower, more operationally useful trigger that preserves emergency flexibility while increasing legislative oversight.