Senate debates broad K–12 funding referral; opponents warn voters could lose TABOR refunds

The Colorado Senate spent an extended floor session debating Senate Bill 135, a referred measure that would allow the state to retain and spend revenue above the existing spending limit to increase public K–12 funding by 2% annually for 10 years and create a new “children’s account.” Sponsors said the change would provide predictable increases for teacher pay, lower class sizes and expand career‑technical opportunities; opponents said the measure would instead keep large amounts of revenue that would otherwise be returned to taxpayers under TABOR and leave spending decisions to the legislature.

Senator Jeff Bridges, one of the bill’s sponsors, and co‑sponsor Senator Kipp said the measure was a limited, accountable approach that ties additional state capacity to a set of purposes for K–12 education and includes an independent annual audit. ‘‘This referred measure does not send dollars out through total program because total program is entirely at the discretion of the district,’’ Bridges said, arguing the positive factor funds would be restricted to the four enumerated uses and overseen by state reporting requirements.

Opponents repeatedly raised projections from legislative staff and debate that the measure could create very large revenue headroom. Senator John Carson warned the chamber that, in long‑run simulations, the change could lead to tens of billions retained by the state and said that only a portion of that amount would be directed to schools. ‘‘This could be $37,000,000,000 in new taxes,’’ Carson said during debate, urging clearer guarantees to voters.

Multiple floor amendments were offered. Amendment L14 renamed the excess state revenue account to the "children's account" and was adopted. A high‑profile amendment (L12) that would have routed all retained excess revenue to the existing Kids Matter Fund — ensuring the legislature could not spend the remainder for other purposes — was debated vigorously and failed on the floor. Other proposed changes, including an amendment to require title‑board language clarifying that only a portion must go to K–12 and that the rest could be spent at the legislature’s discretion, also failed.

Proponents rebutted opponents’ characterizations by emphasizing the bill’s constraints. Bridges said the positive factor would be limited to the four specific uses listed in the bill and that further legislation would clarify permitted investments for the children’s account. Senators on both sides stressed the importance of telling voters what the referred measure does on the ballot; several members proposed amendments to make that language more explicit.

The Senate adopted an amendment (L21) that tightened the statutory language on the positive factor so funds are expended only for the enumerated education purposes. Committee votes and subsequent procedural actions placed the bill on the calendar for further consideration and committee reporting. The record shows heated cross‑chamber debate over the scope and transparency of the proposal; sponsors urged voters be given the choice at the ballot box, while critics said the measure as written could substantially reduce TABOR refunds without binding the legislature to the full range of spending choices some supporters described.

Next steps: The measure was advanced through Committee of the Whole actions and ordered on the calendar for continued floor consideration and eventual referral to the ballot; the transcript records multiple roll calls and division votes on amendments. If approved by voters, the ballot measure’s language and any subsequent implementing statutes will determine the final mix of uses and restrictions for the retained revenue.