Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Budget panel rejects $36,000 GenTax supplemental and approves other Department of Revenue adjustments
Loading...
Summary
The Joint Budget Committee rejected a roughly $36,000 GenTax supplemental tied to HR 1 but approved other Department of Revenue budget‑balancing measures, with members citing prior reductions and available cash‑fund balances.
The Joint Budget Committee rejected a Department of Revenue request for roughly $34,000–$36,000 to update the department’s GenTax software for changes tied to HR 1, but approved related budget‑balancing measures driven by the governor’s executive order.
John Catlett, JBC staff, summarized the department’s S1 request as a roughly $36,000 ask "for GenTax resources related to updating the system with changes resulting from the passage of HR 1," describing the need to modify forms and employer withholding reporting so Colorado’s tax system would reflect state changes after decoupling from federal overtime compensation.
Several members questioned whether the small supplemental could be absorbed after the department absorbed a $500,000 reduction last year. Senator Kirkmeyer pressed for clarity about remaining cash fund balances; Catlett said the department’s appropriation in that cash fund was about $7.9 million. Senator Amabile and others said the request seemed small enough to be absorbed. Senator Mable moved to reject the S1 GenTax request; the motion passed 5–0 with Senator Sirota excused.
Catlett also presented S2, a set of reductions and half‑year impacts tied to the governor's executive order (about $630,000 in total temporary reductions, including personal services and operating lines). Staff recommended approval of S2; Senator Mobley moved the staff recommendation and the committee approved it 5–0 with Senator Sirota excused.
The transcript records some differing round figures in discussion — Catlett consistently framed the GenTax ask at about $36,000 while a committee member referred to it as $34,000 during questioning — and members asked for further clarification of how vacancy savings and cash‑fund balances would be treated at figure setting.
