Concerning the use of money from the broadband infrastructure cash fund.
Summary
HB26-1348 concerns the use of money from Colorado’s broadband infrastructure cash fund. It expands the list of correctional facilities eligible to receive broadband infrastructure funding by adding the Trinidad Correctional Facility, the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility, and the Arrowhead Correctional Facility. The bill also makes a technical update to the existing statute governing the fund and its authorized uses.
The measure extends the repeal date of the broadband infrastructure cash fund statute from July 1, 2027, to July 1, 2028, allowing the fund and its related authority to remain in place for an additional year. The bill is framed as an appropriations measure and includes a safety clause, indicating it is intended to take effect immediately upon enactment.
Impact
The bill amends Colorado Revised Statutes section 17-1-168, which governs the broadband infrastructure cash fund and the Department of Corrections’ authority to spend money from that fund on broadband installation at specified correctional facilities. By adding three facilities to the eligible list, the bill broadens the set of state correctional institutions that may receive broadband infrastructure improvements, subject to annual appropriation by the General Assembly. It also delays the statutory repeal of the section, extending the life of the fund-related authority through July 1, 2028.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill moved forward without recorded controversy. There are no committee transcript excerpts or recorded votes indicating opposition, and the bill ultimately passed and was signed by the Governor. Its appropriations-focused, technical nature and narrow scope suggest general legislative support for continuing and expanding broadband infrastructure work at correctional facilities.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The only likely policy considerations are whether to extend the fund’s repeal date and whether to allocate broadband infrastructure resources to additional correctional facilities. Any disagreement would likely have centered on spending priorities, timing, or the scope of facilities eligible for funding, but no formal opposition is shown in the record provided.