Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said he wants to reduce average homeowners insurance premiums by about $800 annually by the end of next year. 

The goal, which Polis hopes to achieve through a mix of legislative and executive action, comes in response to a dramatic rise in homeowners insurance costs. Average premiums more than doubled between 2018 and 2023, and Colorado ranks as the sixth-costliest state for homeowners insurance, according to a Colorado State University report. 

“It’s really unacceptable,” Polis said during a Thursday, April 23 press conference. “As we look at the cost of living and we talk about the cost of housing — of course it’s the cost of your rent and mortgage — but it’s also the cost of your homeowners insurance, and the premium increases in Colorado have simply been too high.” 

Much of Polis’ plan is built on legislation that has already been passed to drive down insurance costs and provide a safety net to homeowners. That includes the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements, or FAIR Plan, which serves as an insurer of last resort that provides coverage for homes valued up to $750,000 for owners who can’t find insurance on the private market. 

Another measure passed last year, House Bill 25-1182, requires more transparency from insurance carriers on how they assess a homeowner’s wildfire risk, with provisions aimed at ensuring homeowners receive discounted rates for mitigation work. That legislation goes into effect on July 1. 

This year, lawmakers are also advancing Senate Bill 155, which is modeled after a 2025 bill that failed to pass. SB 155 seeks to raise up to $20 million per year for a grant fund that would help homeowners pay to install hail-resistant roofs, with the money coming from a 0.5% fee on insurance carriers’ plans. Carriers would be prohibited from passing that fee onto customers as a surcharge, according to the bill’s language. 

Polis said focusing on hail is especially important for lowering insurance rates. 

A study by the Colorado Division of Insurance released in February found that hail can account for anywhere from 26% to 54% of a premium’s costs, while wildfire accounts for as little as 0.9% to 24.6%. 

Polis said his plan will also be achieved through administrative actions. That includes directing the state’s Division of Fire Prevention and Control to help local jurisdictions adopt wildfire resilience codes for new homes, bolstering fire detection, modeling and forecasting services, and making insurers more aware of Colorado’s mitigation efforts through data sharing. 

The high cost of home insurance is manifesting in all types of housing situations, Polis said. 

In mountain resort areas, homeowners association fees for condominium complexes have exploded in recent years, driven largely by an increase in insurance premiums. 

Colorado Insurance Commissioner Mike Conway said the legislation passed last year to address price transparency also applies to condominium complexes, not just single-family homes. 

The legislation did not include penalties for insurers who don’t comply, but it does allow homeowners to appeal their risk assessment to their carrier. The state plans to launch an education campaign this summer to make homeowners aware of their rights under the new law. 

Conway said insurers will also be required to file their models with the state and show that wildfire mitigation is being accounted for. 

“We have a plethora of enforcement authority already in existing law,” Conway said. 

Polis said if companies are not giving credit for mitigation efforts in their rates, he would direct the state’s insurance division to prevent those carriers from selling plans in Colorado. The insurance division has the ability to block companies from the market. 

“If they’re being lazy or sloppy and not reducing the risk or adjusting it, that’s a problem,” Polis said. “They’d be given a chance to fix that, and hopefully they would, but at some point, if they’re not giving credit for improvements that are made to reduce risk, then they’re overcharging Colorado consumers.” 

Polis is term-limited and will leave office at the beginning of 2027, meaning much of achieving his goal to lower rates could hinge on the actions of his successor. Polis said his plan would lay the groundwork for reducing premiums by the end of next year, and projected optimism that the next governor could work toward that goal.

“I can’t imagine the next governor would say, ‘I want to increase homeowners insurance,’ no matter who it is or what party they are,” Polis said.

A bill promising to streamline the licensing process for out-of-state educators has been signed into law, removing longstanding barriers for rural districts to hire teachers for vacant positions.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed Senate Bill 126 on April 20, along with several other bipartisan bills, after it passed the House in early April.

The bill eases requirements and speeds up the process for out-of-state educators to acquire their Colorado teaching license through the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact. Enacted in 2023, the compact is an existing agreement among 13 states that allows Colorado to recognize and transfer professional teaching licenses held in other states without the need for additional exams or coursework.

Under existing law, licensed educators from other compact states must have at least three years of successful teaching experience within the last seven years to be eligible for a professional teaching license in Colorado. Senate Bill 126 removes the requirement that the experience must be within the previous seven years, expanding eligibility for qualified educators who have taken a break from the workforce for a variety of reasons.

“The seven-year requirement does create barriers for our Colorado workforce, especially in rural areas, where we’re trying to recruit from out of state,” Rep. Dusty Johnson, a Fort Morgan Republican and bill sponsor, said during a March hearing of the bill. “They could be nine years out, but they still have all the credentials and everything else our teachers need, and we would love to have them in our schools.”

The bill also requires the Colorado Department of Education to issue an initial teacher license to an educator licensed by a compact state within 30 days of receiving a complete application. Both provisions are especially beneficial to rural mountain districts, which face significant challenges to hiring like geography, cost of living and limited housing availability amid ongoing educator shortages.

“Our schools are struggling to fill teaching positions. The reasons our workforce challenges are many include low pay, heavy workloads and competition from neighboring states,” Johnson said during the hearing. “While there is no silver bullet to solve these problems, this bill is a small step to helping fill that void by expediting licensure for experienced out-of-state teachers.”

Although the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact was enacted three years ago, states are still working to finalize the rules, meaning school districts have yet to feel the benefits.

Senate Bill 126 will go into effect in August 2026.

A bill to increase penalties and expand criminal charges for sex crimes involving children cleared the Colorado Senate unanimously on Monday, April 20. 

The measure, Senate Bill 15, is sponsored by Sens. Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco, and Byron Pelton, R-Sterling, as well as House Majority Leader Monica Duran, D-Wheat Ridge, and House Minority Leader Jarvis Caldwell, R-Colorado Springs. 

Roberts, a former deputy district attorney for Eagle County, said cases of commercial sexual activity involving children are on the rise in Colorado. 

A 2024 report by the Common Sense Institute, a Colorado-based think tank focused on free market enterprise, found that Colorado ranked 10th in the nation for human trafficking reports, with 84 incidents, based on FBI data. The report noted that virtually every U.S. state saw a spike in human trafficking reports during and after 2021. 

Roberts, during a preliminary Senate vote on the bill last week, said crimes involving children are mostly committed against “young girls who are under the age of 18 by older men, mostly white and socially and economically advantaged, who purchase and solicit children for commercial sexual activity.” 

Roberts added that Colorado already has laws against that type of activity, but added, “This is not what this (bill) is about. This is about making sure that the punishment for those crimes fits what I think most Coloradans would expect, which is prison time.” 

He said state law provides a loophole for sex offenders to avoid prison or jail time by allowing a judge to grant probation to those convicted of a crime. 

SB 15 would require a person charged with soliciting commercial sex activity of a child to spend a minimum of 364 days in a county jail as a condition of receiving probation. The bill also mandates minimum sentencing requirements for other related crimes, including pandering, procurement and pimping of a child, and keeping a place for commercial sexual activity with a child. 

Additionally, the bill makes internet luring of a child for commercial sexual activity a Class 3 felony, which can result in four to 12 years of prison time. Another provision of the bill changes “child prostitution” in existing law to “commercial sexual activity with a child.” 

“This bill is so important because it is brought to us by victims and advocates,” Pelton said during last week’s preliminary vote. “They see the increase in child solicitations, and they want to go after demand. That’s what they’re going after with this bill.” 

Other attempts to increase child sex crime penalties have failed 

While the bill won unanimous approval from Senate lawmakers, measures seeking to outright remove the chance of probation for child sex crimes have failed at the Capitol in recent years. 

The most recent attempt, Senate Bill 111, which would have removed the chance of probation for certain Class 3 and 4 felonies for child sexual assault, was killed in March by four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Roberts was the only Democrat on the committee to join Republicans in voting to advance the measure. 

Democrats who voted against the measure were largely concerned with mandatory sentencing requirements, which they said would remove the ability for judges to weigh the nuances of specific cases and could result in unintended consequences for victims.  They also raised fiscal issues with the bill, which was projected to have cost $3.5 million due to increased incarcerations at a time when the state is grappling with a $1 billion-plus budget shortfall. 

Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, D-Pueblo, was one of the four Democrats who voted against that measure, but supported the bill led by Roberts during its Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February. 

“I, as a matter of philosophical value, struggle with mandatory (sentencing) minimums because I think that judicial discretion is a critical part of due process,” Hinrichsen said at the time. “Yet this is so significant a space that I can absolutely get beyond that, and that’s not a barrier for me on this bill.” 

SB 15 will now be considered in the House. 

With major changes coming to the country’s social safety net system, Colorado counties are bracing for heavier caseloads and federal funding cuts. 

Under the sprawling tax and spending law passed last summer by congressional Republicans, which President Donald Trump coined the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, states could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars as they race to implement new eligibility requirements for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

States will now have to reverify Medicaid eligibility twice per year, rather than annually, and ensure enrollees comply with new work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP. 

Colorado is one of a handful of states that administer those programs at the county level. With some changes set to take effect next year, that’s likely to mean a heavier workload with “really extreme consequences for not doing it right,” said Kelly Flenniken, executive director for Colorado Counties, Inc. 

“Counties are very worried, and they’re worried about it from several perspectives,” said Flenniken, whose organization represents all 64 of the state’s counties. 

Flenniken said ensuring eligible people can stay enrolled in Medicaid and SNAP, while dealing with the increased paperwork and staff hours required to comply with the new federal rules, is a chief concern for county officials.

An estimated 377,000 Coloradans could lose Medicaid coverage, and nearly 300,000 could lose SNAP benefits, as a result of new work requirements and administrative burdens. The state projects that counties may need to double their number of Medicaid case managers, which would mean an additional 3,700 new staffers statewide. Yet many local governments are already struggling with tight budget environments. 

It’s why Colorado lawmakers are eyeing a plan to consolidate some county-level health and human services operations, which they say could help alleviate stressors on local governments. 

“How can we make the system more responsive and more effective and also more efficient?” said Sen. Judy Amabile, D-Boulder, who’s been working with other lawmakers on potential legislation to streamline how counties administer social programs. 

A bill has yet to be introduced, but the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee, which Amabile sits on alongside five other lawmakers, has set aside a little over $3 million to fund such an effort in the next fiscal year’s budget, which starts on July 1. 

Specifics are still being hashed out with county leaders, who initially voiced trepidation with some of lawmakers’ earlier ideas, including regionalizing human services departments, wherein one county would oversee social programs for multiple counties in a given region.  

Some county leaders felt that would be too disruptive to the current process. They also raised concerns about taking autonomy away from other counties that administer those services. 

“County systems are very good about serving people where they are,” said Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue, who’s part of a group negotiating with lawmakers on the potential legislation. “Particularly for folks in rural areas, having a human service office that you can go into and get help when you need it, where you need it, is ideal.”

Ideas have since shifted to focus more on streamlining existing services, though Pogue said there could still be ways to centralize some operations, such as training for health and human services staff. 

One key area counties and lawmakers seem to agree on is updating the state’s benefit management system, which, while a state platform, is administered by each county. Pogue described the system as “very difficult,” adding that it “often takes years for (county technicians) to understand how to use the system without creating errors.”

That’s an issue that’s sure to take on new urgency as states deal with the changes under federal Republicans’ tax and spending law. In addition to shifting more of SNAP’s administrative costs to states, which could cost Colorado an additional $50 million annually, the law cuts federal funding from states with higher SNAP payment error rates starting next fall. 

As of fiscal year 2024, Colorado’s error rate was just under 10%. That means the state would be on the hook for 10% of SNAP’s costs, which would result in a loss of $130 million in federal funds, according to an analysis by the Colorado Fiscal Institute. 

Pogue said even without the new federal changes, counties’ health and human services departments were already stressed due to a lack of sufficient state funding to administer social programs. She said her county discussed hiring more staff to deal with the increased workload from Republicans’ tax and spending law, but budget constraints mean “there’s no more money to pay for those employees.” 

“How do you do more with less? That’s the question that we’re all wrestling with right now,” Pogue said. 

While Pogue said the work to ratchet down Colorado’s error rate “has already started,” efforts to overhaul how counties deliver social programs will need to be a longer-term process.

“I think it’s very important that we not rush that conversation,” Pogue said. “That is the conversation that we need to make sure that we’re doing right so that we don’t have any unintended consequences as a result.” 

As lawmakers and counties continue to negotiate the details of a forthcoming bill, both want to ensure that those who are eligible for benefit programs don’t fall through the cracks. 

“That’s a big challenge,” Amabile said. “We have to keep doing what we’re doing while we make some changes. Things will have to run in parallel for a bit, and you have to have everybody bought in.” 

Flenniken said a shared commitment to protecting enrollees is crucial to keeping negotiations on the proposed bill on track. 

“Nobody wants to see penalties come. Nobody wants to see people going without the benefits that they need,” Flenniken said.  

Republican U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd is headed for a primary against former state Rep. Ron Hanks in his bid to hold onto his western Colorado congressional seat. 

The development comes after Hanks, who served in the Colorado House from 2021 to early 2023, launched a last-minute campaign to secure a spot on the Republican primary ballot during the party’s state assembly in Pueblo. Hanks won enough support from party delegates during an April 10 voice vote, meaning he will challenge Hurd to be the Republican nominee for the 3rd Congressional District in the June 30 primary. 

The 3rd Congressional District stretches from the northwestern corner of Colorado throughout most of the Western Slope and also swings east to include Pueblo. 

Hurd and Hanks previously faced each other in the 2024 Republican primary to represent the district after U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, who had held the seat since 2021, abandoned her re-election bid to run for the 4th Congressional District in eastern Colorado. 

Hurd went on to beat Hanks in the primary by a nearly 13-percentage-point margin before winning the general election against his Democratic opponent, former Aspen City Council member Adam Frisch, by 5%. 

Hurd did not seek support from party delegates to secure a spot on the June primary ballot and instead gathered petition signatures to qualify. 

“I respect the assembly process and the role that all of you play in it. That’s why I’m here,” Hurd told a crowd during the party’s assembly in Pueblo. “But I made my decision to get on the ballot by petition, and I’m confident in that path.”

A video posted on X shows several crowd members booing Hurd following his comments. 

Hurd’s second major primary threat 

Hanks is the latest Republican to mount a challenge to Hurd over what he sees as Hurd’s weak conservative policies and lack of loyalty to President Donald Trump. 

“This is Conservative Colorado, Jeff.  We support President Trump and America First … and you threatened (Donald Trump) you’d ruin it all,” Hanks wrote in an April 10 post on X. “(3rd District) voters will have your seat, Jeff. WE want to drain the swamp. You are part of it.”

Hurd previously faced a primary threat from Hope Scheppelman, a Navy veteran and a former vice chair of the Colorado Republican Party, who said Hurd is “dead set against President Trump and the millions of MAGA citizens like me who demand that Congress does the will of voters.”

Trump himself pulled his support from Hurd in February after the congressman joined a small group of House Republicans and nearly every Democrat in voting to oppose the president’s tariffs on Canada. Hurd said the tariffs were hurting agricultural and steel producers in his district.

In a reversal, Trump re-endorsed Hurd for re-election in March and convinced Scheppelman to drop her primary bid against him, saying he was giving her a position in his administration. 

Asked last month how that would affect the race, a spokesperson for Hurd said, “Congressman Hurd is confident that the voters of (the 3rd Congressional District) will vote to re-elect him because he has consistently voted to put the district first.”

Hanks runs to Hurd’s right 

Like Scheppelman, Hanks has pounced on Hurd’s legislative record. 

While Hurd has supported much of the policy agenda of congressional Republicans and the Trump administration, including the GOP’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act, he has also broken with his party at times and worked with Democrats on issues ranging from public lands to health care.  

Hanks called out Hurd’s support for a sweeping conservation bill, the Gunnison Outdoor Resource Protection, or GORP Act, which Hurd is co-sponsoring alongside Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper. The measure would enhance federal protections for some 730,000 acres of Western Slope land across Gunnison, Saguache, Ouray, Hinsdale, Delta and Pitkin counties. 

“NOBODY locks up the land tighter than the federal government,” Hanks wrote in an April 11 X post criticizing Hurd and the GORP Act. Lock It Up, and Watch It Burn.”

Hurd said he championed the bill because it has support from local communities, including several counties, municipalities, conservation and recreation groups, as well as the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.

During an interview last year, he said his message on public lands during his campaign for Congress was to “make sure that we have federal lands management decisions that have the buy-in of the people that are affected by them.”

Hanks was in the spotlight at the beginning of his tenure as a state representative for attending Trump’s election denial speech in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, which preceded the riot at the U.S. Capitol. He said at the time that he had marched with other Trump supporters to the Capitol and protested outside the building. 

He has supported Trump’s false claim that he won the 2020 election against Joe Biden. 

Asked by The Colorado Sun in 2024 whether they believed Biden was the winner of that election, Hanks said “no,” while Hurd said, “yes.”

On the Democratic side, two Aspen area candidates are running in the June primary to be the nominee to take on Hurd. They are businessman Alex Kelloff, the co-founder of Armada Skis, and Dwayne Romero, a former member of the Aspen City Council and Aspen School District Board of Education.

Despite pressure from Colorado’s congressional delegation, around $140 million in federal funding previously granted to Western Slope water projects has lingered in limbo for nearly 16 months.

The funds, awarded to 17 Western Slope projects in the final days of President Joe Biden’s administration, were part of the Inflation Reduction Act’s drought mitigation grant opportunity for the Upper Colorado River Basin. This included $40 million granted to the Colorado River District to aid in its purchase of the Shoshone water rights, the oldest and largest non-consumptive right on the Colorado River tied to the hydropower plant in Glenwood Canyon. 

Three days after the awards were announced, President Donald Trump took office, and his Day 1 order, “Unleashing American Energy,” called for all federal agencies to “immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act.”

In June, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released funds for two of the projects in the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District in Palisade, but the rest remain frozen. 

“The funding has not yet been released, and that’s a real concern given current conditions across all of Colorado, but particularly western Colorado,” said Rep. Jeff Hurd, a Republican representing Colorado’s third district spanning the Western Slope, in an interview on Thursday, April 9. “I am continuing to press hard for clarity on timing and next steps because those projects were awarded for a reason and the need has not gone away.”

Hurd joined all members of Colorado’s congressional delegation in August in pushing for the remaining funds to be released in a letter to the top officials at the U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation.

Since then, Hurd said he has been “actively working the issue at multiple levels.”  

“I’ve raised it directly with the president. I’ve raised it directly with the acting commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Secretary of the Interior, the undersecretary at the Department of Interior,” he said. “My focus has been straightforward: These are projects that are tied to real water needs, and delaying them only increases the risk for communities not only in my district but throughout the Colorado River basin.” 

Hurd said he remains hopeful the funds will be released, especially following what he referred to as a “productive discussion” with Trump.

“It’s gonna require continued pressure and attention,” he said. “There is broad recognition that water and water infrastructure and drought mitigation are not optional in the West, and these sorts of projects — for example, the Shoshone water right, and these other projects — they are practical. They’re targeted and they’re already vetted. So the case for moving forward on them is strong, and I’m gonna keep pushing until we see progress.”

With the funds frozen due to both “bureaucratic reasons” and “politics,” Hurd likened his approach to that of a river. 

“I want to be like water when it comes to these obstacles,” he said. “When water meets an obstacle, it either goes around it or wears it down.”

In an emailed statement, Rep. Joe Neguse, a Democrat representing Colorado’s second district, which spans portions of the northwest Front Range and a few Western Slope counties, said he was committed to pressing the Trump administration to release this “critical drought management funding,” with Hurd and Colorado Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper.

“There is no more critical lifeline for our state, our communities, and our way of life here in Colorado than the Colorado River, and safeguarding this water source for future generations is an issue that impacts folks of every political stripe,” Neguse said. “This is of the utmost importance to farmers, ranchers, municipalities, conservation organizations, recreation businesses, county commissioners, and civic leaders across our state. And together, we’ll defend the Colorado River for the future of the state we all treasure.”

Which funds are withheld in Colorado 

The Inflation Reduction Act set aside $4 billion toward drought mitigation, including funds for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Upper Colorado River Basin System Conservation and Efficiency program, also known as the Bucket 2E funding. In January, the Bureau under Biden’s administration allocated a total of $388.3 million to 42 projects on tribal land and in states in the Upper Basin. 

This included $152 million for 17 projects in Colorado, including those for wildlife habitat, watershed and stream restoration, water infrastructure improvements and more.  

Only $12 million of this funding for two Orchard Mesa Irrigation District projects  — meant to improve water delivery to the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River, which extends from Grand Junction and the confluence of the Gunnison River and serves as critical habitat for several endangered fish species, as well as install new metering technology in the Grand Valley — has been released to the awardees. 

The largest Colorado award was the $40 million promised to the River District, which represents 15 Western Slope counties. This funding represented a large chunk of the $98.5 million that the River District needs to purchase the Shoshone water rights from Excel Energy. Outside of the frozen federal dollars, the River District has raised $57.2 million from the state Legislature, its board and the various Western Slope municipalities and utilities it serves. 

Matt Aboussie, Colorado River District’s communications director, said the district continues to work closely with the Bureau of Reclamation to secure this promised funding and remains committed to securing the rights. 

“Funding will not be the obstacle that stops this effort,” Aboussie said. “If needed, River District leadership is prepared with alternative funding options and continues to rely on all our communities to get this project across the finish line.”

While the $40 million has been withheld, the Colorado River District has been going through all the other steps to acquire the water rights. In November, it entered into an instream flow agreement with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which will ensure that flows tied to the water rights will remain in the Colorado River for environmental benefits regardless of the hydroelectric plant’s future.  

The River District has also filed a joint application in water court with the conservation board and Xcel Energy. The water court will make the final determination on the acquisition, including rulings on some of the contested issues surrounding the district’s acquisition of the water rights, such as how much water has historically been granted. As this case gets underway, 63 entities have filed as parties with an interest in the acquisition, including Front Range water providers, cities and counties concerned about their transmountain diversions and around 23 Western Slope entities supporting the River District. 

After a water court decree, the district will need funding and approval from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to complete the transaction.

Funding needs intensify as drought worsens on the Western Slope 

The need for the funds has intensified following a historically low snowpack and a drought affecting the entire state, including large portions of the Western Slope under the most intense drought conditions. The latest projections for the Colorado River estimate that Lake Powell will receive around one-fifth of its normal water from the basin. 

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis activated the state’s drought task force in March, which will help coordinate a response to the worsening conditions. Local water providers and municipalities are already introducing restrictions to guard limited water resources this summer. This has included declarations and drought restrictions across the Western Slope, including those from the Vail-area water district, the city of Steamboat Springs and the Mt. Werner Water and Sanitation District, Grand County and the towns of Basalt, Yampa, Frisco and Kremmling. 

“These projects are about resilience. They are about liability. They help stretch limited water supplies. They improve storage and delivery systems and most importantly, they give communities in my district certainty and increasingly uncertain environment,” Hurd said.

When Colorado lawmakers passed a bill in 2022 to grant Medicaid coverage to pregnant immigrant women and children, regardless of their immigration status, they did so under the assumption that it would cost the state roughly $14.7 million in the program’s first full fiscal year. 

In reality, Cover All Coloradans, which launched in 2025, will end up costing the state over $104.5 million for the fiscal year that began on July 1 and runs through June 30, a more than 600% increase over its original estimate. 

Now, the program faces cuts as lawmakers prepare to close a roughly $1.5 billion shortfall in the upcoming state budget, including an enrollment cap and benefit reductions. It’s among a list of health care cuts proposed by the Joint Budget Committee, a bipartisan panel of lawmakers that crafts the state’s annual spending plan.

Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, who was a lead sponsor of the 2022 bill to create Cover All Coloradans, said she was “pained by the cuts” that were included in the budget committee’s spending plan, which the legislature will soon need to pass and send to Gov. Jared Polis to become law. 

Still, McCluskie believes the proposals represent “responsible, if not very difficult, action” by budget writers. 

“My hope is that we are able to continue to provide this program as best we can for years to come,” McCluskie said.

For Republicans, the ballooning cost is a glaring example of what they’ve long argued: That Democrats have spent big on programs the state can no longer afford, which they say has contributed to the current budget crisis. 

“We can’t afford to keep overspending on programs that are not core to our government, core to what we are supposed to be doing as legislators here at the state Capitol,” said Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton, one of two Republicans who sit on the budget committee, and a candidate for Colorado governor in 2026.

idas, said rollbacks to Cover All Coloradans will hit rural areas particularly hard. Mountain resort communities are home to large immigrant populations and already see some of the highest uninsured rates in the state. 

Sanchez said less preventative care through programs like Cover All Coloradans will drive up expensive emergency services, like hospital visits and transfers. 

“Colorado will have to learn the hard way that it will cost us more long-term by reducing proactive, preventive programs like the ones that we’re cutting now,” he said. 

Miscalculations and incorrect assumptions 

There are several factors behind why cost projections for Cover All Coloradans were so far off.

That includes an underestimation of how many new immigrants would come to Colorado and be eligible for coverage, according to the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program. 

The program only covers pregnant women and children under the age of 19 who don’t qualify for Medicaid because of their immigration status, including those who are undocumented. Originally, the program was expected to serve a few thousand people in its first year. But as of February, enrollment was around 28,000 people, about 20,000 of whom were children. 

“This is a population that is very hard to estimate,” the department wrote in response to emailed questions. “Subsequent to the passage of the legislation, we had the largest migration into the U.S. since the late 19th century.”

Fiscal analysts also failed to accurately predict the cost of providing services to children, having assumed that they would be relatively healthier compared to the rest of the state’s Medicaid child population. Those assumptions were based on early data from a similar program in Oregon, but children enrolled in Cover All Coloradans ended up having similar costs to children on traditional Medicaid, according to the health department.  

Colorado is one of 14 states that provide state-funded health care coverage to low-income immigrant children, and one of 24 states that cover pregnant women, regardless of their immigration status, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

To curb costs, the Joint Budget Committee approved a cap of 25,000 children for the 2026-27 fiscal year, which begins on July 1, and lowered the cut-off age from 19 years old to 18 years old. There would not be a cap for pregnant women. 

The budget committee also included roughly $12.9 million in cuts for the program, recommended by the state’s Medicaid agency, including a cap on dental benefits and an end to long-term care services for new enrollees, though children currently receiving that care would be grandfathered in.

Some of the benefit cuts wouldn’t go into effect until Jan. 1, midway through the 2026-27 fiscal year. 

Lawmakers are currently debating the budget, and will have the opportunity to bring amendments that the budget committee will either accept or reject. After that, the budget faces one more procedural vote in the House and Senate before it can be sent to Polis to become law.

‘A very serious value challenge’

The program’s future continues to divide lawmakers, with Democrats remaining committed in their support while some Republicans, who’ve largely opposed the program since its inception, want to see it end. 

When making spending decisions, budget committee member Rep. Rick Taggart, R-Grand Junction, said the issue becomes more nuanced. 

“I think it’s easy for people to take a position on one extreme versus another,” said Taggart, one of two Republicans on the Joint Budget Committee. “It’s a very serious value challenge to me.”

Taggart said he is sensitive to the argument made by many of his Republican colleagues that the program is providing state-funded health care to immigrants who may be undocumented, when that money could instead be going to Colorado citizens. Funding for children in the program comes from state dollars, although the state does use some federal funding to cover pregnant women. 

Taggart said he has to balance that argument against two other factors. 

“One is: These are human beings,” he said. “I can’t ignore that these are human beings, and when it comes to children, they didn’t make the decision to immigrate to our country; it was their parents.”

The other concern for Taggart is that if the program were eliminated, it would further stress hospitals, particularly in rural parts of the state, which would have to absorb more uncompensated care from immigrants who don’t have health coverage. 

He said the cost-control measures the budget committee approved were “the best solution.” But the decisions haven’t been easy. 

“I didn’t sleep,” Taggart said, “while I was trying to work this through in my mind: ‘What could we do that was fair to these families, but at the same time was fiscally responsible?'”

Cuts come after years of spending growth 

The cuts being proposed by lawmakers this year have further fueled a debate over government spending. 

A key driver of the state’s $1.5 billion shortfall is Medicaid, which recently eclipsed K-12 education as the single-largest budget item in the state’s general fund.

A state-commissioned report last year found that Medicaid spending had increased nearly 60% since fiscal year 2018. That’s almost double the rate of overall state spending growth allowed under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, a 1992 voter-approved amendment to the Colorado Constitution that limits government revenue to the rate of population growth plus inflation. 

Democrats have largely focused on the revenue cap as the reason for the budget shortfall, arguing that TABOR has artificially constrained the state’s ability to keep up with increased needs, such as more long-term care services for older Coloradans. 

Republicans say money mismanagement and increased spending are the main culprits of the state’s budget woes. State Medicaid officials have come under scrutiny after recently revealing that they mistakenly overpaid certain providers for years, costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars. The state’s top Medicaid official, Kim Bimestefer, resigned this month amid criticisms of her handling of the health care agency. 

And while increased utilization of expensive services, like long-term care, has driven up costs, lawmakers have also added hundreds of millions of dollars in increased expenses through the creation of new programs, like Cover All Coloradans. 

A February report by the Common Sense Institute, a think tank focused on promoting free enterprise policy, found that between 2019 and 2025, the Colorado legislature had enacted 182 new health care laws. Those measures, which the report says “created new bureaucracies, expanded covered services, and added regulations on public and private providers,” totaled at least $858 million per year in new state spending. 

Now, lawmakers are preparing to vote on a budget that would pare back Medicaid spending across several areas, including a 2% cut to reimbursement rates for Medicaid providers, a cap on billable hours for at-home caregivers, and an increase to the waitlist for adults with developmental disabilities who need 24/7 care. 

Kirkmeyer said an enrollment cap for Cover All Coloradans is a “good first step,” but feels that spending on the program has forced cuts to other essential services.

“I’m saddened by the fact that we have cut funding to those individuals who are the poorest of the poor that are among us and medically fragile and U.S. citizens,” she said. 

McCluskie remained steadfast in her support for the Cover All Coloradans program, saying she still would have championed its passage in 2022 even if she had known then what its true costs would be. 

“I have yet to talk to anyone who would say that a pregnant woman or a child is undeserving of care,” McCluskie said. “If we don’t provide this program upfront, then individuals … will wait until that child needs to be seen in an emergency room. The system is better for this program; overall, health care costs are better for this program.” 

She added, “We have a lot of problems in the (health care) system, but fighting for this program is right.”

In a move meant to protect some of Colorado’s most prized produce — from Palisade peaches and Olathe sweetcorn to Pueblo green chiles — Gov. Jared Polis signed a new law Wednesday cracking down on counterfeit products. 

House Bill 1031, which passed the legislature unanimously, makes it a deceptive trade practice to market fruits and vegetables as Colorado-grown if those products were produced in a different state. The measure also prohibits sellers from using the “Colorado Proud” logo unless authorized by the state Department of Agriculture. 

Violating those provisions could result in fines of up to $20,000. 

“Ever since the 1893 World’s Fair, and confirmed by the 1904 World’s Fair, Colorado produce — particularly western Colorado produce — has been highlighted as the world’s best,” said bill sponsor Rep. Matt Soper, D-Delta, referencing events in which the state won top honors for its fruits and vegetables. 

“And that’s because of our cool nights and warm days and pure Rocky Mountain snowmelt water,” Soper added. “… We want to protect that.”

Other bill sponsors are Rep. Matthew Martinez, D-Monte Vista, and Sens. Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco, and Marc Catlin, R-Montrose. 

Soper said he got the idea for the bill after being told by the Palisade Chamber of Commerce that they had concerns about imposter peaches and other out-of-state produce purporting to be from Colorado. 

“Protecting the authenticity of Colorado’s iconic agricultural products is essential to sustaining rural economies and preserving the heritage that makes these regions so unique,” Palisade Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Jessica Burford told lawmakers in February during the bill’s first committee hearing.  

Proponents of the measure say that when counterfeit products enter the market, it not only undercuts Colorado producers but also harm the state’s reputation for certain high-quality produce. 

“When someone buys something, a Palisade peach, and it’s rock hard, and they throw it away and say, ‘I won’t buy another one,’ … it hurts the families who produce that,” Catlin said. 

Polis said consumers value the “Colorado Proud” brand, and made a nod to the state’s long-running, friendly competition with its southern neighbor. 

“We certainly don’t want people thinking (New Mexico) hatch chiles are Pueblo chiles,” Polis said. 

Polis has already signed several other agricultural-focused bills from the current legislative session. 

That includes measures expanding eligibility for agricultural loans and funds to help farmers with diseased livestock, as well as a bill granting property tax exemptions to more ranchers and farmers. 

As rural school districts continue to struggle with educator shortages, a new bipartisan bill wants to end a program that helps Colorado students access pathways to teaching — something high school seniors say would leave them in an unfair spot.

The Teacher Recruitment Education and Preparation program was created through Senate Bill 21-185 in 2021 as a way to encourage high school students to pursue careers in education. The program currently offers up to $10,000 in tuition assistance to program participants who remain enrolled in a fifth and sixth year of high school to take postsecondary courses related to a teacher career pathway.

House Bill 1357, introduced in early April, would phase out the program over a two-year period to put money back in the State Education Fund.

“This is a program that we can appreciate has been enjoyed by a small, but appreciative number of students,” Rep. Emily Sirota, vice chair of the House Appropriations Committee, said during an April 7 hearing of the bill. “It is a program that, I think, in other years, is maybe nice to have. However, I would also say that … it only serves a very small number of students. It’s not what I would say is particularly equitable when we think about the dollars that we have for our per-pupil funding in Colorado.”

The Department of Education reported that 4.5% of the students in the program have earned a teaching credential, Sirota said. While a number of them are still enrolled, it would take several years to find out whether any became teachers in a Colorado district.

Funding for the program is taken from the State Education Fund, which acts as a specialized revenue stream for K-12 education supplementing general fund spending. Less than a week before Monday’s state budget proposal, the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee proposed slashing funding to the teacher preparation program as lawmakers were getting ready to close a $1.2 billion budget shortfall in the 2026-27 general fund.

“We are challenged in this budget year to fully implement our new school funding formula. We’re not able to dedicate any new general fund dollars to funding that formula, so the rest of those increases that we would see this year in K-12 funding will have to come out of the State Education Fund,” Sirota said. “While I can appreciate that this has been an important benefit to a small number of students … it is a program that I don’t think in the context of our budget we are actually able to afford.”

For some students and their families, however, it’s the timing of the program’s transition that is stirring the most concern.

House Bill 1357 would phase out the Teacher Recruitment Education and Preparation program by 2027-28, meaning no new students would be accepted for the 2026-27 school year. Only existing students entering their second year of the program would be allowed to finish out their studies. Per-pupil financial assistance for students completing the program would also go down from $10,721 to $7,104 under the bill.

Believing in the promises of the program, several high school seniors set to graduate this spring have turned down other post-secondary opportunities in favor of beginning their educator training in the fall, according to student testimonies. Now, if passed, House Bill 26-1357 could lead these post-secondary plans to fall apart.

“The timing of the decision by the Joint Budget Committee is devastating,” Joana Balderman, the parent of a high school senior, testified during the hearing. “Students like (my daughter) have no ability to pivot. It feels as if the state is turning their back on their promise to these students.”

Several students, teachers and parents testified during the hearing to ask for an amendment that would allow current high school seniors to enter the program during the 2026-27 school year, thus delaying the elimination of the program by one year. This change, many argued, would avoid disrupting any post-secondary plans students had already committed to.

Stephanie Christian, the parent of a graduating senior, argued that the teacher preparation program should receive similar treatment to the Accelerating Students through Concurrent Enrollment program, which was repealed by a 2025 bill and is being phased out through 2026. Students who were seniors at the time of the bill passing were allowed to keep their spot in the program and receive their scholarship.

“The state recognized that those students had made academic and financial decisions based upon a promise, and it chose not to disrupt the path at the last moment. This is not what is happening today,” Christian said. “Students who are weeks away from graduation are not being given the same consideration as last year. They followed the rules, they met the expectations, they made binding college decisions based upon a state-created pathway. Now with almost no notice, that pathway is being removed.”

Many students hoping to join the program in the fall also passed up opportunities to apply for traditional post-secondary scholarships earlier in the year, due to the program requiring that they remain in high school. Now, those students would be left with limited time to figure out alternative arrangements for their education.

“Students like me worked very closely with counselors. We shaped our classes and applied and have been accepted to colleges and even deferred other pathways, all based on the promise that this program made to us. The deadlines to make changes to that path have already passed,” Abby Christian, Stephanie’s daughter, said to the House Appropriations Committee. “I’m graduating next month, and the end of this program means I have no path forward. So where do I go now?”

Since 2021, the program has capped participation at 250 students, though only 193 students are participating in the program during the current 2025-26 school year. Roughly 137 of those students are in their first year of the program and will complete it in the 2026-27 academic year.

According to the fiscal note, the bill would reduce costs for the State Education Fund by $1.6 million for the 2026-27 fiscal year, reflecting a decrease from 250 to 137 students and the reduction in the per-pupil rate. The bill would reduce nearly $3 million in program costs during the 2027-28 fiscal year, when the program is fully eliminated.

The House Appropriations Committee passed the bill by a 9-2 vote. Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, a Glenwood Springs Democrat, was among the committee members who voted in favor of phasing out the program.

“We had a terrible job trying to close a billion dollar budget gap, and so while folks feel as though they were promised or counting on particular benefits from the state, this is what we are dealing with,” Sirota said. “Our budget is limited by TABOR, and we have to present a balanced budget.”

The bill heads to its second reading on April 9.

Frisco voters have decided the fate of four open town council seats after 12 candidates faced-off on Election Day. All results are unofficial until after certification on April 17.  

Current Mayor Pro Tem Andy Held received the most votes with 386 while fellow incumbent council members Elizabeth Skrzypczak-Adrian (335 votes) and Robyn Goldstein (317 votes) received the second and third most votes, respectively. These top-three candidates will serve four-year terms, while newcomer Thayer Hirsh (285 votes) will serve a two-year term since he received the fourth most votes.

Incumbent council member Zach Ryan was among the eight candidates who did not receive enough votes. Ryan received 227 votes while Eric Klein got 210, Durant Abernethy got 196, Mark Waldman got 179, Brian Randall got 160, Alex Beach got 133, Mary Fletcher 125 and TJ Paulus got 118.

The winners will join current council members Mayor Rick Ihnken, Martin Allen and Dan Kibbie, who are not up for reelection this year. 

Increasing housing stock, supporting the workforce, balancing tourism, ensuring fiscal responsibility and diversifying the local economy were key issues that candidates discussed and debated during the forums and election cycle. 

With a crowded field, here’s a summary of how candidates campaigned ahead of Election Day.

Held, owner of the general contractor company Textbook Builds, said his top three priorities were improving wildfire mitigation, championing workforce housing and fortifying infrastructure.  

Skrzypczak-Adrian, owner of Rocky Mountain Coffee Roasters, said her top-three priorities were safeguarding strong town finances, executing on long-term planning informed by the community and funding those community-focused projects. 

Goldstein, a licensed clinical social worker at Mile High Integrated Care, said her top-three priorities were protecting the environment, supporting a diverse and resilient economy and maintaining a stable and year-round community. 

Hirsh, an entrepreneur, said his top-three priorities were coming up with smart solutions for housing, protecting schools and improving early childhood education and preserving Frisco’s soul. 

Ryan, the community engagement manager of Elevated Community Health, said his top-three priorities were supporting the year-round community, pursuing thoughtful growth and economic stability, and focusing on community engagement and representation.

Klein, a business owner and real estate professional, said his top-three priorities were bringing practical experience to the town’s growth, protecting and supporting the local economy and preserving Frisco’s character. 

Abernethy, a pediatric physician at High Country Healthcare, said his top-three priorities were increasing foot traffic in business areas, developing community resistance to environmental forces and expanding care options for those who are ill or older residents. 

Waldman, owner of Summit Mountain Rentals, said his top-three priorities were creating a community that works together, building a resilient and balanced economy and staying the course on workforce housing.  

Randall, a former tech executive, said he would represent the people who live in Frisco rear-round while promoting balanced growth in Frisco. 

Beach, a bartender and ski instructor, said his top-three priorities were creating better workforce housing, bolstering wildfire protection and protecting the community against water scarcity. 

Fletcher, a lawyer, said her top-three priorities would be to take a balanced approach to growth, use revenue to enhance quality of life and reach community and environmental goals. 

Paulus, a local business owner, said his top three priorities were investing in the local community, supporting and protecting local business and preserving Frisco’s culture.