Summary#

HB 26-1368, Eliminate Limited Gaming Fund Transfer, amends Colorado law; it does not eliminate the Innovative Higher Education Research Fund. It removes the required transfer of $2.1 million each fiscal year from the Limited Gaming Fund to that research fund. The stated goal is to end that transfer.

• The state treasurer will no longer be required to make the $2.1 million annual transfer.
• The research fund will still receive money from another source named in law; the bill does not remove that source.
• The change takes effect July 1, 2026.

What it means for you#

• State treasurer: The duty to transfer $2.1 million each fiscal year ends.
• Higher education research fund: It loses that dedicated annual transfer, but remains in place and can still receive money from the other source listed in law.
• Researchers and research institutions: The bill does not directly change research eligibility, applications, or services. It does remove a dedicated funding source for the research fund.
• People in Colorado: The bill does not change taxes, gaming rules, or individual benefits in the text provided.

Money#

The bill removes a required $2.1 million annual transfer; no fiscal estimate is available in the supplied material.

• The Limited Gaming Fund will no longer be required by this law to transfer that amount to the research fund.
• The bill does not specify how money remaining in the Limited Gaming Fund will be used.
• No cost information is provided about any effect on research funding, staffing, or services.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not say what will happen to the money no longer transferred, beyond ending this specific transfer.
• The supplied text does not explain how the research fund is spent or whether other funding could replace the transfer.
• The text does not clarify the timing of the first transfer affected, given the July 1, 2026 effective date and the rule’s fiscal-year-end transfer schedule.

Case for#

• Ending the earmark (a legally reserved amount) could leave more money in the Limited Gaming Fund for other uses allowed by law.
• The bill removes one fixed transfer rather than closing the research fund or removing its other stated funding source.
• A possible argument for the bill is that the state should not keep directing $2.1 million each year to this fund if other uses are a higher priority.

Case against#

• The research fund will lose a dedicated $2.1 million each year, which could reduce the money available for higher education research.
• The bill does not explain whether another source will replace that funding or how research projects could be affected.
• It does not identify what the retained money will support, so the public benefit of ending the transfer is unclear.