House panel hears proposal to send state funds straight to counties; DOLA and municipal groups oppose sweeping transfers

Representative Sukhla presented a bill that would alter how certain state-designated funds are distributed by sending money directly to counties using a split formula: 50% by county population and 50% equally to all 64 counties (with tribal governments included in the bill’s design as testified). The sponsor framed the change as a way to “cut out the middleman” and get funds on the ground faster for local needs such as public safety and housing.

Proponents said the current competitive grant and administrative structure leaves many rural communities without timely access to funds. Shaq Powers, who testified in support, argued that multiple competitive programs created by recent voter-approved initiatives and implementing legislation have produced grant rules and compliance requirements that are difficult for small towns to meet; he recommended direct distribution or a county-first model and noted DOLA could be amended back into a revised proposal to include agencies such as CBI and Colorado State Patrol if needed.

State agencies and municipal groups testified in opposition or with caution. Bruce Eisner, legislative liaison for the Department of Local Affairs, said the department opposed the introduced bill because it would redirect funds currently allotted to programs (including marijuana tax cash funds and Proposition 123 and Proposition 130 allocations) and would risk critical funding for programs such as recovery-oriented housing, community planning grants and the array of programs created after voter initiatives. Maud Nerolle of the League of Women Voters warned the bill would create a fixed distribution formula and eliminate the flexibility intended by voters and statute, giving an example where a small county with a sudden, unplanned public-safety need could not receive extra funds under the fixed split. Elizabeth Haskell of the Colorado Municipal League said municipalities were underrepresented in the proposed distribution and that the bill, if enacted as introduced, did not direct funds to municipal needs.

Committee members asked detailed questions about which specific funds the bill targeted, whether the bill would strip money from state-administered programs, and how the proposal would treat tribal governments. Representative Stewart said she shared the sponsor’s concern for local access to funds but urged incremental reforms rather than a wholesale reallocation; Representative Marshall asked specifically about including state agencies such as CBI and the state patrol in any distribution to avoid losing capacity for statewide services such as forensic analysis and crime-lab work.

No amendments were adopted during the hearing. The sponsor asked to postpone the bill and, with committee consent, the bill was postponed indefinitely.

Ending: Proponents urged the committee to return the money to counties to speed local projects, while state agencies and municipal associations said the change would undermine existing programs, statutory intent and flexibility.