Concerning subjecting specified cash funds to a three-year maximum reserve limitation instead of the annual maximum reserve limitation, and, in connection therewith, subjecting the public school construction and inspection cash fund and the ...
Summary
HB26-1393 changes how two Colorado cash funds are treated under the state’s reserve-limit law. Under current law, cash funds generally must keep uncommitted reserves below a maximum reserve level each fiscal year, and if reserves exceed that level the fee-setting entity must reduce fees to bring reserves back down. This bill exempts the public school construction and inspection cash fund and the health facility construction and inspection cash fund from the annual reserve cap and instead applies the reserve-reduction requirement only if either fund exceeds the maximum reserve for three consecutive fiscal years.
The bill also amends the general cash-fund reserve statute to add both funds to the list of excluded funds. It preserves the existing structure of each fund, including annual appropriation, retention of unspent balances, and the authority to adjust related fees if long-term reserve levels remain too high. In effect, the bill gives these two construction-and-inspection funds more flexibility to maintain reserves year to year before triggering mandatory fee reductions.
Impact
The bill modifies Colorado Revised Statutes sections 24-33.5-1207.7, 24-33.5-1207.8, and 24-75-402. It removes the public school construction and inspection cash fund and the health facility construction and inspection cash fund from the standard annual uncommitted-reserve limitation and places them under a three-year exceedance test. If either fund remains above the maximum reserve for three straight fiscal years, the relevant division must reduce fees to bring reserves back within the limit, with authority to raise fees later if doing so would not again exceed the cap. The practical effect is to delay fee reductions and reserve corrections for these two program funds while leaving the broader reserve framework intact for other cash funds.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill moved forward without recorded opposition in the provided materials. It passed through the House and Senate Appropriations committees and was ultimately signed by the governor, which indicates institutional support and a generally favorable reception. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, there is no evidence here of organized debate or divided sentiment.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether these two funds should be subject to the state’s annual reserve discipline or allowed to operate with more flexibility before fee reductions are required. Supporters likely view the change as a way to avoid unnecessary fee cuts in funds tied to construction and inspection programs that may need to carry balances over multiple years. Any concern would center on reduced annual oversight and the possibility that reserves could remain elevated longer than under current law, but no specific objections, amendments, or dissenting stakeholders are shown in the provided record.