University presidents and system leaders told the Joint Budget Committee in a multi-hour hearing that ongoing state investments are critical to keeping tuition affordable, supporting first-generation students and meeting Colorado’s workforce needs — and warned that the state’s higher-education system remains underfunded.

“All roads lead through first generation kids,” said John Marshall, president of Colorado Mesa University in Grand Junction, describing the mix of two-year, four-year and workforce training responsibilities that make his campus an access point for many Coloradans. “If you look at the math around Colorado's students and our workforce and our goals, you simply can't get there from here unless we do a really outstanding job of attracting, retaining, and helping families who have not been to college in the past get a credential.”

Why it matters: Committee members face a tight overall budget. Higher-education leaders said the state’s past investments produced measurable gains — more credentials, expanded workforce training, new facilities and programs — but that a constrained fiscal year will force trade-offs that could push students out of the state or raise tuition further. Several presidents urged the committee to preserve recent base increases to avoid backsliding.

Leaders pressed three linked points in testimony and follow-up questions: state funding per resident student in Colorado remains lower than peer states; colleges serving high shares of first-generation, Pell-eligible and rural students require sustained (not one-time) support to operate effectively; and technical fixes to funding distribution or new reporting mandates should not be rushed without stakeholder input.

Enrollment and student mix: Janine Davidson, president of Metropolitan State University of Denver, said MSU Denver’s fall enrollment included about 16,600 undergraduates and 1,200 graduate students, 96 percent of whom are Colorado residents. She told the committee that 58 percent of MSU Denver students are first-generation college students and 56 percent are students of color. “Seventy percent of my operating budget is people,” Davidson said, arguing that mandated pay increases for 1 employee class ripple across campus payroll and require comprehensive budgeting rather than selective raises.

Compensation and indirect costs: Committee members asked how the Wynne agreement — the administration's negotiated raise for classified staff — affects institutions. The department provided an $8 million figure tied to a 2.5 percent increase for classified employees; presidents told the committee that the true institutional impact is larger because adjustments typically require offsets across other employee groups or programs. Davidson said that human resources and student services are essential to serving first-generation students and that selective compensation increases can create untenable pay equity problems on campus.

Funding formula review and base funding equity: Committee members and university CEOs discussed the planned refresh of Colorado’s higher-education funding formula (sometimes called the “gonculator” or the 3-step model). Some presidents welcomed a careful review but warned against an approach that would simply reallocate base funding between institutions without addressing historical inequities in base allocations. John Marshall said Colorado Mesa declined to sign a “common ask” letter this year because his institution’s financial reality did not match the assumptions in that joint request. Several presidents encouraged the committee to consider both adequacy (size of the pie) and allocation (how the pie is split) rather than adopting performance-only measures that can penalize institutions serving higher-need students.

Reporting and the proposed transparency measure: Multiple university leaders said they had limited or no prior engagement on a proposed transparency bill described by the department. Presidents and system leaders generally favored greater public access to existing data but cautioned that new statutory reporting requirements can impose unfunded administrative costs. “Everything’s there,” one president said of data already submitted to state and federal systems; another suggested that repackaging existing data on a shared website could achieve transparency quickly without new law.

Rural institutions and first-generation-serving campuses: Rural university presidents — including Western Colorado University, Fort Lewis College and Adams State University — reiterated that a relatively small state investment produces outsized regional impact. Western’s president cited scholarship drives, mobile workforce training, and targeted health and nursing partnerships; Adams State emphasized its role as a “rural anchor” that substantially increases economic mobility for valley residents. Those presidents urged permanence for the operating support the legislature provided last year.

Tuition-promise programs and outreach: Presidents said many campuses now operate institutional “tuition promise” or “last-dollar” programs for lower-income students and that the statewide Colorado Promise (a tax-credit model) needs implementation changes to be more accessible and timely for families. Leaders urged a coordinated outreach strategy so eligible students and families understand available aid at the point of high-school counseling and college recruiting.

What the committee heard on outcomes: Presidents cited improved retention and workforce alignment when institutions receive stable support. Several noted increases in short-term credentialing, transfer pathways, and career-connected learning, and they pointed to private philanthropy and program innovations (coaching, mobile labs, employer partnerships) as ways state funds have been leveraged to multiply impact.

Looking ahead: No formal actions or votes were taken in the hearing; presidents and CFOs were set to continue the conversation with the committee and the Department of Higher Education on formula work and budget assumptions. Several leaders urged the committee to prioritize meeting core minimum costs and to include campus input before changing reporting or the funding formula.

Ending note: Speakers tied the budget discussion to Colorado’s long-term competitiveness. One university leader used the “pink flamingo” framework to describe higher education as a foreseeable, growing risk if investments lapse. “It is a flashing pink flamingo,” the leader said, warning that predictable decline in investment could reduce Colorado’s ability to educate the workforce the state needs.