Summary#

HB 26-1370, Limited Gaming Fund Transfers to Other Cash Funds, amends Colorado Revised Statutes sections 44-30-701 and 44-30-1201. Now enacted, it requires the State Treasurer to divide an annual $15 million transfer from the Limited Gaming Fund between tourism promotion and a museum and preservation account, starting at the end of the 2025-26 fiscal year. The stated purpose is reflected in the fund destinations; the bill does not promise particular results.

• Through the end of the 2024-25 fiscal year, the law directs $15 million a year to the Colorado Travel and Tourism Promotion Fund.
• Starting at the end of the 2025-26 fiscal year, the Treasurer must transfer $14 million a year to that tourism fund and $1 million a year to the Museum and Preservation Operations Account.
• Money transferred to the museum account is subject to annual appropriation by the General Assembly for purposes set out elsewhere in the law.

What it means for you#

• State government: The State Treasurer must make the specified transfers each year. The General Assembly decides whether to appropriate money in the museum account for spending.
• Colorado residents and taxpayers: The bill does not directly change taxes, fees, benefits, or individual eligibility. It changes how limited gaming revenue is allocated between two state funds.
• Tourism and museum operations: The tourism fund receives $1 million less per year than the prior $15 million transfer. The museum and preservation account receives a new $1 million annual transfer, but that money is not automatically available to spend without an appropriation.

Money#

The bill redirects $1 million a year from the tourism transfer to the museum and preservation account; no cost estimate is included in the supplied material.

• The bill specifies recurring transfers totaling $15 million a year, beginning with the transfer at the end of fiscal year 2025-26.
• It does not state how much the General Assembly will appropriate from the museum account, or give an estimate of administrative costs or other public costs.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the full current versions of the amended laws. I could not verify all existing rules or the permitted spending purposes in section 44-30-1201(5)(b).
• The bill does not specify how much the General Assembly will appropriate from the museum account in any year.
• The supplied material does not explain how the funds are used in practice or what results the transfers are expected to produce.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that it directs a recurring amount to museum and preservation operations while maintaining a large annual transfer to tourism promotion.
• The bill sets out a predictable annual allocation between the two named funds, rather than leaving the split unstated in this provision.

Case against#

• One concern is the trade-off: the tourism fund receives $1 million less each year than the prior annual transfer.
• Money transferred to the museum account may not be spent unless the General Assembly appropriates it, so the transfer alone does not ensure funding for operations.
• The bill does not include a cost estimate or explain why this particular split is expected to meet the needs of either fund.