SB180 changes how Colorado calculates annual state population growth for purposes of the constitutional state spending limit under Section 20 of Article X of the state constitution (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR). The bill updates the statutory formula in Colorado Revised Statutes 24-77-103 so that, beginning with state fiscal years starting on or after July 1, 2024, population growth is measured using the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual state population estimates in a way intended to avoid distortions caused by revised estimates. For fiscal years before that date, the bill preserves the prior method but also clarifies how adjustments are carried forward.
The bill’s core purpose is to reduce both double-counting and under-counting of population changes that can affect the allowable increase in state fiscal year spending. It also keeps the special treatment for census years, when a regular annual estimate is not issued, and it allows any unused adjustment from a census year to be carried forward for up to nine fiscal years. The bill includes legislative findings stating that the General Assembly has authority to enact this change and that the new approach is consistent with the constitution.
In practical terms, SB180 affects the state’s spending limit calculation rather than creating a new program or changing tax rates. It amends the statutory formula used by state budget officials and lawmakers to determine the maximum annual growth in state fiscal year spending, which can influence how much revenue the state may retain or spend under TABOR. The bill therefore has direct implications for the state budget, fiscal planning, and the calculation of the spending cap.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive, with unanimous or near-unanimous approval in the Senate and broad support in the House, though the House Appropriations vote was not unanimous. The bill appears to have been treated as a technical fiscal correction rather than a major policy fight, and it was recommended for the consent calendar in the Senate, suggesting limited controversy at that stage.
The main point of contention is the underlying constitutional and fiscal effect of changing the population-growth formula. Supporters frame the bill as a fix for inaccurate counting caused by revised Census Bureau estimates, while any opposition likely centers on whether the legislature should adjust a TABOR-related calculation and whether the change could affect the spending limit in ways that expand state fiscal capacity. Even so, the recorded votes indicate that objections were limited and the measure enjoyed substantial bipartisan backing.
Impact
SB180 amends Colorado Revised Statutes 24-77-103, the statute implementing the TABOR state fiscal year spending limit, by revising the method used to calculate annual state population growth. The bill changes the formula for fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 2024, and clarifies how census-year adjustments are carried forward for up to nine years. Its effect is to alter how the state determines the allowable annual increase in spending under Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution, which can affect budget authority and the size of the state spending cap.
Sentiment
The bill was generally received as a technical, corrective measure and passed with strong support in both chambers. The Senate votes were unanimous or nearly so, and the House passed the bill by a substantial margin, indicating broad agreement with the need to fix the population-growth calculation. The committee action placing it on the consent calendar in the Senate also suggests low controversy and a perception that the bill was largely administrative rather than ideological.
Contention
The main substantive issue is whether the General Assembly should modify the TABOR spending-limit calculation by changing how population growth is measured. Supporters argue the existing approach can double-count or under-count population because of revised Census Bureau estimates, leading to inaccurate spending limits. Any critics would likely focus on the constitutional implications of altering a formula tied to TABOR and on the possibility that the revised method could increase the state’s spending capacity. The vote history shows some opposition in the House Appropriations Committee and on House third reading, but not enough to prevent passage.