Summary#

HB 26-1358, titled “Reduce Academic Accelerator Grant Program Appropriation,” amends Colorado law and a 2023 appropriation; it does not create a new program. It reduces the state Department of Education’s appropriation for the Colorado Academic Accelerator Grant Program. Its stated goal is to reduce that appropriation.

• The program appropriation for the 2023-24 state fiscal year drops from $24.5 million to $19.3 million, a reduction of $5.2 million.
• The total Department of Education appropriation in the 2023 law drops from $26,694,530 to $21,494,530. Both amounts are from the general fund.
• The department may spend the program funds appropriated for 2023-24 through the 2026-27 budget year. Any unspent funds then revert to the general fund.
• The law says the program appropriation assumes the department will need an additional 2.6 full-time-equivalent staff. That is an assumption, not a requirement to hire that number.
• The relevant statutory subsection is set to be repealed on December 31, 2027.

What it means for you#

• Colorado Department of Education: The department has $5.2 million less appropriated for the program than the amount in the 2023 law. It may spend the program funds that were appropriated through the end of the 2026-27 budget year.
• People or organizations connected to the grant program: The bill lowers the overall appropriation, but does not set new eligibility rules, award amounts, or a process for changing or cancelling grants. Its effect on particular recipients is not specified.
• Taxpayers: The bill reduces an appropriation from the general fund. It does not directly change taxes or create a fee.

Money#

The bill reduces the program’s general-fund appropriation by $5.2 million; no separate cost or savings estimate is provided.

• The 2023-24 program appropriation changes from $24.5 million to $19.3 million.
• The total Department of Education appropriation changes from $26,694,530 to $21,494,530.
• The 2.6-staff figure is an assumption used to calculate the program appropriation, not a stated hiring duty.
• The bill does not say how much of the earlier appropriation had already been spent or committed when the reduction took effect.

What is unclear#

• Whether the reduced appropriation changes grants already awarded or planned, or only limits future spending.
• How many people or organizations receive support through the program, and how the cut affects them.
• Why the appropriation is being reduced.
• The supplied material does not include the full current text of the amended statute or the full 2023 law, so I could not verify all existing program rules against current law.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that it reduces the amount of general-fund money authorized for this program.
• The bill still allows the department to spend the remaining appropriation through the 2026-27 budget year, rather than requiring all funds to be used sooner.
• Any funds left at the end of that period return to the general fund.

Case against#

• One concern is that less funding may mean less support can be provided through the program, but the bill does not show how many grants or recipients might be affected.
• The bill does not explain whether the reduction could affect existing commitments or how the department should handle any gap.
• The text gives no reason for the cut or information about the program’s results, making it difficult to assess the trade-off.