Reviewers Ask For Statutory Text, Definitions and Duties in Hearing on Initiative 198’s 'Colorado Clarity Portal'

Caitlin, committee staff, opened the Jan. 20 hearing on Initiative 198 by asking proponents to state the measure’s purpose. A designated representative responded: "State financial and program performance transparency through a centralized public reporting system," identifying two main aims: require executive-branch agencies to report financial and program performance information to the state controller and create a publicly accessible Colorado Clarity Portal to host that information.

The Office of Legislative Legal Services and Legislative Council staff reviewed a 01/16/2026 memorandum of substantive and technical comments and pressed the proponents for a number of drafting and implementation details. Rebecca Bayetti of the Office of Legislative Legal Services noted constitutional and statutory drafting requirements and asked whether the proposal was a statutory initiative; proponents confirmed it would add a new part to article 72.4 of title 24 in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Staff advised adding the constitutionally required enacting clause and said, "You have submitted an idea rather than the actual language that would be amended in the Colorado Revised Statutes," asking the proponent to file the full statutory text for review.

Reviewers sought clarity on: who maintains the portal (the proponent said the state controller would maintain the portal while agencies must submit accurate and timely information); how the proposal would interact with existing systems (the proponent said the Clarity Portal would supplement—not replace—existing state systems); reporting frequency and definitions (the proponent stated quarterly reporting with annual performance outcomes and offered working definitions for terms such as "actual expenditures," "program" and "major program"); and what transfers and vendor payments must be reported.

Staff also recommended specifying how data standards and formats would be adopted. The memorandum suggested that uniform standards, reporting schedules and formatting requirements be established by fiscal rule; the proponent said the initiative requires the state controller to adopt fiscal rules covering these topics. On enforcement, staff noted the draft disclaims a private right of action; the proponent said compliance would be pursued through administrative oversight, legislative review and public accountability and that the state controller would publish an annual compliance report documenting failures to submit required information.

Funding and implementation were recurring concerns. Staff observed that section 8's language states the initiative "does not require new appropriations" even though the portal and reporting could require resources. The proponent said the initiative would leverage existing systems and personnel and would not require new appropriations. Staff recommended replacing relative timing phrases with specific dates for implementation; the proponent said they updated the text to include specific dates and described initial implementation steps as portal deployment, rule adoption and designation of agency compliance officers, with reporting to begin in the 2027–28 fiscal year.

The proponent said they had revised the draft to address the comments and technical concerns. The hearing record was closed and the committee adjourned.

The next procedural step is for proponents to file revised statutory language for formal review and for staff to consider the detailed technical comments; staff recommended clarifying each entity’s duties in the statutory text and specifying rulemaking and reporting thresholds.