Treasury urges funding to preserve property tax deferral program, defends $1.8M CoreLogic contract

Colorado State Treasurer Dave Young told the Joint Budget Committee that the state should continue funding the Property Tax Deferral Program and the technology that runs it, saying the program is “an investment” that returns principal plus interest and primarily serves seniors.

The Treasurer presented comeback budget requests for the Department of the Treasury including two accounting positions and a Treasury operations cash-management position, funding for a centralized debt-management tool, and additional staffing and licensing for the unclaimed-property program known as Great Colorado Payback. On the property tax deferral program, the department seeks continued funding for a contract with CoreLogic to provide a customer portal, e‑recording, maintenance, and a staffed call center; Treasury staff said the current ask for the CoreLogic contract is $1,800,000 annually for FY25–FY26, reduced from a prior request of $2,500,000.

Why it matters: Treasury officials said the program currently administers roughly $21,400,000 in loans to about 1,300 participants and that roughly 80% of beneficiaries are seniors on fixed incomes. “This is not the exemption program. This deferral program means it comes back with interest,” Treasurer Young said. He warned that ending the program would “put senior homeowners at risk” and could increase pressure on the state’s safety net.

What Treasury proposed and the department’s rationale - Program scale and users: Treasury and the program director reported roughly 1,300 active participants and said loan volume has been growing; staff said the program window opens Jan. 1 and closes April 1 each year, producing a surge in inquiries and applications during that period. - CoreLogic contract: Treasury staff described the vendor arrangement as more than software: the contract, they said, covers a portal, e‑recording of deferral certificates, 24/7 maintenance, a staffed call center, engineering and marketing. Treasury’s fact sheet (distributed to the committee) lists the $1.8 million figure for FY25–FY26 and shows reductions from the department’s original request. - Cost sharing with counties: Treasury presented a preliminary county cost‑sharing model that allocates costs using a weighted average across three metrics (owner‑occupied housing counts, senior population, and active program participants) and includes incentives for participation and revenue credits for counties that collect payoff interest at the county level. - Staffing and other requests: Treasury asked for three full‑time positions (two general accounting positions and one Treasury operations/cash manager) and for two FTE in the unclaimed property division to process rising claim volumes, plus funding for postage and LexisNexis licenses.

Questions and concerns from committee members - Return on investment: Several legislators pressed Treasury on the CoreLogic contract’s cost effectiveness. Representative Taggart called the tool “far too expensive” and said at $1.8 million per year he did not see a clear return on investment. Treasury responded that loans are repaid with interest and cited $668,000 in interest revenue from recent payoffs (described as a roughly 12% return over four years). - Alternatives and county capacity: Some members suggested moving administration to counties; Treasury and the program director said counties lack automation and staff and would face significant manual workload if responsibility returned to them. Treasury offered a stakeholder process and the preliminary cost‑sharing model to explore options. - Ongoing obligations: Committee members emphasized the program creates an ongoing fiscal commitment; one senator said the state’s fiscal capacity has declined since the program’s statutory creation and flagged the need to consider long‑term affordability.

Clarifying details from the department (as presented to the committee) - Active participants: ~1,300 (department figure) - Loans outstanding administered by Treasury: ~$21,400,000 in principal outstanding - Beneficiary demographic: ~80% seniors on fixed incomes (department figure) - CoreLogic contract: $1,800,000 annual ask for FY25–FY26 (reduced from $2,500,000); described as covering portal, e‑recording, maintenance, call center, engineering and marketing - Paused comeback items: R3 and R7 (combined approximately $940,000) were deferred by Treasury for now - Treasury staffing ask: 3 FTE (2 accounting + 1 Treasury operations/cash management) - Unclaimed property ask: 2 FTE plus postage and LexisNexis licenses; the division is cash‑funded

Discussion vs. decision - Discussion: Committee discussion focused on program scale, vendor costs, county capacity to take over administration, and long‑term fiscal implications. Several lawmakers sought alternatives to the CoreLogic contract and questioned whether a lower‑cost approach could manage the workload. - Direction: Treasury said it would provide the committee with its preliminary cost‑sharing model and a spreadsheet showing the county cost allocations and other supporting detail. Treasury also pointed to fact sheets in the committee binder showing reduced request amounts. - Formal decision: The committee did not take a vote on the comeback requests during this hearing.

What’s next: Treasury told the committee it would submit the cost‑sharing spreadsheet and supporting documents; lawmakers signaled they will weigh the department’s evidence of program repayments, the projected growth in participants, and alternative technology options before deciding on funding.

Representative and staff quotes used in this report come from the committee’s public hearing transcript and were attributed above to the speaker by name and role where stated.