SB25-173 revises Colorado’s statutory definitions of “damage award” and “property sale” for purposes of calculating state fiscal year spending under TABOR. The bill’s core purpose is to clarify that certain revenues collected by the state should be treated as exempt from fiscal year spending when they are more like penalties, fines, judgments, or asset-sale proceeds than ordinary state revenue. It specifically adds several categories of monetary penalties and civil penalties to the “damage award” definition, including penalties tied to health care, public health and environment, energy and carbon management, water quality, labor standards, and related enforcement actions.
The bill also expands “property sale” to include a broader set of transfers of tangible or intangible property rights for consideration, expressly listing several state programs and activities such as merchandise sales at History Colorado and state historical society museums, sales of supplies connected to agricultural inspections, wildfire equipment repair, pesticide inspections, correctional education, the business enterprise program, non-concession sales at the Colorado State Fair, and promotional wine sales by the Colorado Wine Industry Development Board. The bill applies these clarified definitions beginning with state fiscal years commencing on or after July 1, 2024, and includes a legislative declaration stating that the changes are intended to align statute with the constitutional treatment of these revenues.
Impact
The bill affects Colorado’s fiscal accounting rules under Article X, Section 20 of the state constitution by changing how certain receipts are classified when measuring the state’s spending limit. In practical terms, it can reduce the amount counted as fiscal year spending by moving specified fines, penalties, and sales receipts into exempt categories, which may affect whether the state is considered to have exceeded TABOR limits. It amends section 24-77-102 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and directly impacts how state agencies and budget officials categorize revenues from enforcement actions and state-run sales activities.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill was generally supported but not unanimously so, with several close votes in both chambers and some opposition at key stages. It advanced through Senate Finance, Senate Appropriations, House Finance, and House Appropriations, then passed third reading in both chambers and the Senate concurred in House amendments. The pattern indicates broad enough support to enact the measure, but also meaningful concern from some legislators about the fiscal and constitutional implications of reclassifying revenue for TABOR purposes.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether the bill appropriately broadens the categories of revenue excluded from fiscal year spending, which can affect TABOR calculations and the appearance of state spending levels. Supporters likely view the bill as a technical clarification that aligns statute with the constitution and prevents penalties or asset-sale proceeds from being treated as ordinary spending. Opponents likely worry that the bill expands exemptions in a way that could reduce transparency or loosen fiscal constraints by moving more revenue outside the spending limit. The close committee and floor votes indicate disagreement over the scope and policy consequences of these reclassifications.