Summary#

HB 26-1355, “Reduce Appropriation Out-of-School Time Grant Program,” would amend Colorado law on the grant program and reduce its 2026–27 appropriation under certain conditions. Its stated goal is to reduce funding for the program. The governor vetoed the bill, so it did not make these changes.

• The bill would decrease the program’s 2026–27 General Fund appropriation by $1.75 million if that year’s budget includes an appropriation of at least that amount.
• If the budget appropriation is less than $1.75 million, or includes no appropriation for the program, the bill would not require a reduction.
• The bill also changes part of the statute that sets program funding. The supplied text does not reliably show what that change would be.

What it means for you#

• Grant providers and organizations: If the proposed budget reduction applied, less money would be appropriated for the grant program. The bill does not say which grants or recipients would be affected, or how awards would change.
• Taxpayers: If the reduction applied, the state would appropriate $1.75 million less from the General Fund for the program. The bill does not establish a change to taxes or fees.
• People who use out-of-school time programs: The bill does not directly change eligibility or services. Any effect on specific programs or participants is unclear.
• Everyone: Because the governor vetoed the bill, it did not change the law or make the proposed appropriation reduction.

Money#

The bill would reduce the 2026–27 General Fund appropriation by $1.75 million if the budget includes at least that much for the program.

• If the budget appropriation is below $1.75 million or absent, the bill would not require a reduction.
• No publicly available information on the bill’s broader fiscal effects or on how a reduction would affect individual grants.

What is unclear#

• The supplied text does not clearly show the change to the statute’s funding language, so its full effect cannot be verified.
• The bill does not specify how a reduction would be distributed among grants or recipients.
• The supplied material does not explain why the governor vetoed the bill.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that it would reduce General Fund spending on the program by $1.75 million when the budget appropriation is large enough.
• The bill sets a limit on the required reduction: it would not require cutting an appropriation smaller than $1.75 million or cutting funding when none is included.

Case against#

• One concern is that reducing the appropriation could leave less funding for grants, while the bill does not say which providers or services would bear the effect.
• The bill does not provide information about the consequences of the reduction for grant recipients or people using their programs.