This story was produced as part of the Colorado Capitol News Alliance. It first appeared on .
This time last year, Colorado food pantries were on the brink 鈥� so state lawmakers stepped in to help, passing to help nonprofits stock up on local produce.
A year later, . The Trump administration announced it was eliminating the Local Food Purchase Assistance program, a $500 million grant for food banks, as part of its wide-ranging assault on federal government spending.
And now, the state of Colorado, facing a $1.2 billion budget shortfall of its own, might reduce its contribution to food pantries 鈥� on top of the .
As part of its line-by-line review of state spending, the Joint Budget Committee took a preliminary vote in February to cut $1 million from food assistance grants. That same day, the six-member budget panel also cut $500,000 from a program that helps fund across the state.
The two wrenching choices 鈥� taking away diapers from babies, and food from families in need 鈥� have become a mantra of sorts for lawmakers as they鈥檝e combed through the operations of state agencies in recent weeks, searching for a million dollars here and a hundred thousand dollars there to cut from the state鈥檚 budget. More than once, lawmakers have been confronted by choices that seem a little easier when they try to weigh their human toll against the things they鈥檝e already agreed to do.
鈥淚鈥檓 OK with eliminating it entirely,鈥� Sen. Judy Amabile, D-Boulder, said of proposed cuts to an apprenticeship program earlier this month. 鈥淚 voted to take $1 million away from food banks 鈥� that seems like a lot more immediate for people in need.鈥�
鈥淲e are talking about food banks and diapers and public health dollars and the like,鈥� said Rep. Emily Sirota, D-Denver, during a debate over funding hospitality education programs in high schools. 鈥淭his to me, feels like a nice-to-have rather than a must-have.鈥�
This afternoon, lawmakers will learn how much they still need to cut, when state economists present the latest revenue forecasts to the budget writing committee. But as of now, Colorado doesn鈥檛 face a revenue problem. The budget crunch is instead driven primarily by under the Taxpayer鈥檚 Bill of Rights, which limits state tax collections to the combined rate of inflation and population growth.
鈥淚 think every day we have had difficult decisions,鈥� Sirota told The Sun in an interview. 鈥淓very day there have been sad decisions that we have made.鈥�
And the most significant ones are still yet to come. For all the cuts lawmakers have approved so far, most of them have barely made a dent in the state鈥檚 $1.2 billion budget gap. But every dollar saved on small programs is a dollar they won鈥檛 have to cut this week from the big ones 鈥� Medicaid providers, and the 鈥� in the final sprint to introducing a budget bill this month.
Here鈥檚 some of what the JBC has done so far:
Targeting inefficiency
In light of the threat to social services, some decisions feel like no-brainers, lawmakers say.
Last week, for instance, the JBC eliminated $400,000 in funding for an office that doesn鈥檛 exist 鈥� a Judicial Discipline Ombudsman that the legislature created in 2023, but .
Budget writers are looking to repeal a that was supposed to help around 100 low-income households a year. In its first year, administrators said they didn鈥檛 have enough funding to .
Lawmakers have also looked to wring savings out of programs that aren鈥檛 working as intended, nixing $1.8 million in funding for the software that powers the state鈥檚 when they learned that .
Sen. Jeff Bridges, the JBC鈥檚 chair, told The Sun they鈥檝e also eliminated things that don鈥檛 seem like necessities, such as grant money to help marijuana growers increase their energy efficiency.
鈥淵ou know, there aren't 1,999 more programs like the marijuana efficiency one,鈥� said Bridges, a Greenwood Village Democrat. 鈥淭hat plus the Ombudsman Office that was never filled is a million dollars. Well, we have $999 million more to go.鈥�
And the JBC could still face pushback from the rest of the legislature in maintaining even the small cuts it has already made.
While the judicial ombudsman and property tax deferral programs aren鈥檛 working as lawmakers intended, they were still created with overwhelming bipartisan support in response to real needs. It鈥檚 likely that one or both could see a rescue attempt by supporters through budget amendments on the House and Senate floors.
Shifting costs to others
Some of the cuts the JBC has made won鈥檛 necessarily eliminate spending 鈥� but they will shift them to someone else.
One idea to salvage the property tax deferral program, which allows homeowners to defer chunks of their property tax bill until they die or sell their home, is to outsource the administration of it back to county governments.
The JBC also scaled back a bipartisan effort to have the state share the cost of assistant district attorney salaries with county governments starting July 2026. The JBC鈥檚 proposal would delay the provision until July 2027, and have the state cover 25% of their pay. That鈥檚 down from the 50/50 split called for by , but still more than the state contributes today 鈥� nothing. The original proposal was aimed at helping rural counties with staffing shortages.
If the legislature approves the change, that won鈥檛 help with next year鈥檚 budget crunch. But it would save the state $1.1 million annually starting in the 2026-2027 budget.
Another JBC proposal would eliminate a program that dates back to the Gov. John Hickenlooper administration: a grant that helps local law enforcement target gray and black market marijuana sales. That would save the state about $800,000 next budget year.
鈥淲e鈥檙e in a situation where we need to stop taking on local government responsibilities, and saying they鈥檙e ours somehow,鈥� Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton, said at one hearing.
The biggest cost shifts are yet to come, when lawmakers consider how much to fund higher education and health care providers. Absent state spending, the bulk of those costs are unlikely to go away 鈥� they鈥檒l just be pushed onto college students and patients.
Rationing 鈥� and eliminating 鈥� health care services
More than any other agency, the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing is driving the state鈥檚 budget crunch.
It already represents a third of the state鈥檚 $16 billion general fund. And next year, Medicaid costs are expected to grow by 5.7% 鈥� about 2 percentage points faster than the TABOR cap will allow state tax collections to grow in the 2025-26 budget.
But the department鈥檚 sheer size hasn鈥檛 made it any easier to cut.
鈥淵ou either cut people off Medicaid, you pay doctors less, or you deny services,鈥� Bridges told The Sun. 鈥淭hose are the options. That鈥檚 how you control the cost of Medicaid.鈥�
At a hearing last week, lawmakers to:
- cap the dental services Medicaid would cover for adults (a savings of $1.6 million)
- eliminate continuous Medicaid eligibility for children under 3, meaning they鈥檇 have to re-enroll annually ($5.6 million)
- reduce the rates Medicaid pays for certain health needs, including maternity care ($6.3 million)
Each of them would have amounted to a decimal point worth of savings against a shortfall of $1.2 billion; none of them passed.
The committee at one point considered eliminating , a program that has enrolled around 10,000 kids without legal immigration status in Medicaid since it launched in January. But the idea, which would have saved $19.2 million next year, fell flat with the JBC鈥檚 Democratic majority 鈥� even as some suggested they would consider 鈥渞ationing鈥� health care for the enrolled children if they can鈥檛 find a better way to balance the budget.
When lawmakers finally agreed to cut something from the health budget 鈥� $200,000 to support therapeutic horse programs that have been shown to help children with developmental disabilities 鈥� the gravity of the situation sunk in.
鈥淚 hate this,鈥� Bridges complained.
At another hearing last week, which saw the budget panel torn over how much to spend on public defenders, Kirkmeyer reminded them how far they still had to go.
鈥淲e haven鈥檛 really been cutting that much 鈥� at least it doesn鈥檛 feel like it to me,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e can鈥檛 keep funding at these high levels. We just can鈥檛.鈥�