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.