Summary#

Senate Bill 26-193, Local Ordinances & State Employees, amends Colorado laws about minimum wages, municipal occupational privilege taxes and state employee compensation. Its stated rationale is that minimum wages for state employees have been and remain a matter for collective bargaining; the bill does not promise a particular wage result.

• For Colorado’s minimum-wage law, the State is excluded from the definition of “employer” to the extent a state employer has a collective bargaining agreement about employee wages. The bill also makes a related change to the definition of “political subdivision.”
• Beginning January 1, 2028, the State is not an occupation or business place subject to a municipal occupational privilege tax. The bill ties this change to another law, whose text was not supplied.
• The Office of State Planning and Budgeting must submit a supplemental budget request to the Joint Budget Committee by January 4, 2027, concerning state employee compensation during the 2026–27 fiscal year. A request is not an appropriation.
• The bill is enacted. Most provisions take effect upon passage; the municipal tax provision starts January 1, 2028.

What it means for you#

• State employees: For purposes of the state minimum-wage law, the State is not treated as an employer to the extent a state employer has a collective bargaining agreement about wages. The bill does not set a wage, require a wage increase or reduce wages.
• State employees without such an agreement: The bill’s employer-definition exclusion is limited to cases where the agreement covers wages. The bill does not explain how the law applies to other state employees.
• Municipalities: From January 1, 2028, the State is excluded from being an occupation or business place subject to a municipal occupational privilege tax. The scope of this exclusion depends on a cited law not included in the supplied material.
• State government: The Office of State Planning and Budgeting must prepare and submit the compensation-related budget request. The bill does not require the Joint Budget Committee to approve it.
• Other workers and employers: The bill does not directly change wage rates, create a benefit, or set new rules for private employers.

Money#

No cost estimate is in the available material.

• The bill requires the Office of State Planning and Budgeting to submit a budget request, but gives no estimate of the cost of preparing it or of the compensation it concerns.
• The bill itself does not appropriate a specific amount or state a fee or tax rate.
• The municipal occupational privilege tax change could affect local tax revenue, but the materials give no estimate.

What is unclear#

• The parent laws being amended were not supplied, so the full current law and the exact effects of the changes could not be verified.
• The bill refers to section 24-50-104 for the occupational privilege tax exclusion, but that provision’s text is not available here. Its full scope is therefore unclear.
• The bill does not explain how to determine which state employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement about wages for these purposes.
• The bill does not state what compensation change the budget request should address, or how the request will be considered.
• It does not set out how these changes interact with particular local ordinances.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to keep state employee wages, where covered by a collective bargaining agreement, within the state bargaining process rather than the reach of local minimum-wage rules.
• A single statewide treatment of state employees could avoid different local wage rules applying to the State as an employer.
• Requiring a budget request gives lawmakers a formal opportunity to consider state employee compensation for the 2026–27 fiscal year.

Case against#

• One concern is that the bill limits the reach of local wage rules for state employees covered by wage agreements, without explaining how that limit applies across different agreements or local ordinances.
• The occupational privilege tax exclusion could reduce local revenue, but the bill materials do not estimate the amount or explain the cited law’s full effect.
• The budget request is required, but the bill provides no amount, decision standard or guarantee that compensation will change.
• Because key cross-referenced laws were not supplied, the boundaries of the exclusions are difficult to assess from this text alone.