University presidents and higher‑education leaders told the Colorado Joint Budget Committee on an oversight panel that recent state investments have produced measurable gains in student retention, workforce alignment and rural campus stability — but warned that persistent underfunding and proposed policy changes could undermine those gains.

"The budget is is not gonna be an easy thing to address," said John Marshall, president of Colorado Mesa University, as he opened remarks about trade‑offs the sector faces in the current fiscal year. Marshall and other presidents described using one‑time and targeted dollars to expand advising, short‑term workforce credentials and localized programs such as a mobile learning lab and a behavioral‑health loan‑forgiveness pilot aimed at keeping roughly "20 ish" providers in Grand Junction.

The panel emphasized why that investment matters. Brad Baca, president of Western Colorado University, and other rural leaders said small, targeted appropriations can have outsized regional impact: Western cited a $170 million three‑year economic impact on the state and fundraising that produced nearly $30 million in scholarships. Fort Lewis College reported roughly $200 million in regional economic activity and record philanthropic inflows; Adams State highlighted steep local poverty and an institutional mission to move low‑income students into higher income quintiles.

At larger institutions, leaders described how state support and campus programs work together. "I really do believe we and you, we have a shared responsibility to ensure not just the viability of higher education in Colorado, but that it thrives," said the president of Metropolitan State University of Denver, noting MSU Denver's enrollment (reported as 16,600 undergraduates and 1,200 graduate students), an average student age of 24, and that 58% of MSU Denver students identify as first generation.

Speakers repeatedly returned to three interlinked concerns: base or "ongoing" funding levels, the role of tuition in institutional revenue, and the mechanics of the state's multi‑step funding formula. Several presidents said recent step‑1 investments have helped, but that historical base funding shortfalls and compounding percentage effects leave many institutions behind.

"We continue to fall further and further and further behind," Marshall said, explaining why some universities declined to sign a common budget 'ask' letter that tied a funding scenario to a tuition‑cap expectation. Presidents from rural institutions said last year's permanent increases were transformational but that permanency is critical to sustaining student supports already put in place.

Leaders also warned about the indirect costs of compensation actions. Committee members asked about the state collective bargaining or wage agreements — referred to in the hearing as the "wins agreement" — that included an additional 2.5% for classified employees. "Seventy percent of my operating budget is people," MSU Denver's president said when asked how a targeted raise for one group ripples across pay bands and campus budgets.

Committee members and presidents discussed two policy proposals in play: a proposed "transparency" bill included in the governor's materials and a scheduled review of the state's higher‑education funding formula. Several university leaders said the data needed for public transparency largely already exist on institutional and state websites (IPEDS and the unit‑record data system were cited), and cautioned that adding new statutory reporting or unfunded mandates would increase administrative costs and divert funds from student services. "Everything's there," an institutional representative said. "Perhaps you can combine them in different ways, use them in different ways that would create more transparency."

On the funding formula review, presidents expressed mixed views. Some said Colorado's three‑step model (base funding, step‑1 targeted investments, and step‑3 one‑time dollars) can be used to pursue policy goals such as equity and rural support. Others urged caution about wholesale changes, warning that simplistic "performance funding" approaches can be regressive and reallocate dollars to institutions serving more advantaged students. "Please consider the benefit that the research and development activities of the R1 universities bring to it as a factor," Colorado School of Mines' president told the committee, while other campus leaders urged the committee to avoid shifting funding away from mission‑driven regional and access institutions.

Several speakers detailed state and campus programs intended to lower student costs. Multiple universities reported campus tuition‑promise or "last‑dollar" programs for families below defined income thresholds; the governor's Colorado Promise tax credit (a two‑year, partially refundable design discussed in the hearing) drew specific concern about timing and implementation, including whether the tax credit design can be administered in a way that provides immediate aid to students rather than a delayed tax benefit.

The hearing included repeated references to measurable outcomes: retention improvements, growth in short‑term credentials, and local workforce pipelines. But panelists warned that without sustained base funding and careful handling of the funding‑formula review and any new reporting mandates, some recent gains could prove temporary rather than structural.

The Joint Budget Committee did not take a vote at the hearing. Members signaled they planned follow‑up conversations with campus CFOs and the Department of Higher Education; presidents said they would engage in forthcoming stakeholder processes while urging legislators to prioritize predictability and sufficiency of base funding.

The committee recessed to continue related meetings later in the week.