What you pay
Charges the state sends you, line by line.
One car registration, line by line
What you pay › One car registration, line by line
Specific Ownership Tax
$122.40
2026
FACT tax transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Specific Ownership Tax charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-107. Credited to: County — distributed to local taxing authorities.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Registration Base Fee charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-306(2)(b)(I). Credited to: Highway Users Tax Fund.
Single publisher — the statute. The DMV fee page cites the section without reproducing the schedule.
Where it came from Colorado Revised Statutes C.R.S. 42-3-306 — Registration fees, passenger and passenger-mile taxes, fee schedule
Open the source document ↗
Sets the Registration Base Fee by weight. NOT on the DMV fee page, which cites the section without reproducing the schedule — so this line has a single publisher and the module says so. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › One car registration, line by line
Road Safety Surcharge (FASTER)
$19.30
2026
FACT fee transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Road Safety Surcharge (FASTER) charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 43-4-804. Credited to: Highway Users Tax Fund — 56 percent to the state highway fund, 24 percent to counties and 20 percent to cities and incorporated towns for registration periods beginning on or after 1 September 2025 (C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I), added by Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025)); 60 percent to the state highway fund, 22 percent to counties and 18 percent to cities and incorporated towns before that (C.R.S. 43-4-205(6)(b)).
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › One car registration, line by line
Bridge Safety Surcharge (FASTER)
$18
2026
FACT fee transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Bridge Safety Surcharge (FASTER) charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 43-4-805(5)(g). Credited to: Statewide Bridge Enterprise Special Revenue Fund.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Age of Vehicle charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-306. Credited to: Highway Users Tax Fund.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Clerk Hire Fee charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-1-210. Credited to: County Clerk and Recorder.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Emergency Medical Services charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-304(21). Credited to: Emergency Medical Services Account.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts County Road and Bridge charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-310. Credited to: County Road and Bridge Fund — apportioned monthly between the county and its municipalities.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Revised Statutes C.R.S. 42-3-310 — Additional registration fees, apportionment of fees
Open the source document ↗
Sets County Road and Bridge at $1.50 (and $2.50 for motorcycles and light trailers) STATEWIDE — the amount does not vary by county, which is the thing most people assume it does. What varies is the APPORTIONMENT: the county treasurer splits the account monthly between the county and the municipalities inside it, on the record of rural and urban registrations.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › One car registration, line by line
Peace Officer Standardized Training (POST)
$1
2026
FACT fee transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Peace Officer Standardized Training (POST) charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-304(24). Credited to: POST Board $0.95 · County Clerk and Recorder $0.05.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › One car registration, line by line
Emissions Program County Area
$0.70
2026
FACT fee transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Emissions Program County Area charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-304(18)(a). Credited to: County Clerk and Recorder.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › One car registration, line by line
Emissions — Statewide Air Account
$0.50
2026
FACT fee transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Emissions — Statewide Air Account charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-304(18)(a). Credited to: Statewide AIR Account.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Insurance Fee charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-304(1)(b). Credited to: Motorist Insurance Identification Database.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › One car registration, line by line
Motorist Insurance Information Database
$0.10
2026
FACT fee transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Motorist Insurance Information Database charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-304(1). Credited to: DRIVES Vehicle Services Account.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Material fee — year tab charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-301. Credited to: License Plate Cash Fund.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › One car registration, line by line
Emissions — Area Air Account
$1.50
2026
FACT fee transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Emissions — Area Air Account charged on an annual Colorado vehicle registration. Set by C.R.S. 42-3-304(18)(b). Credited to: Area AIR Account.
Transcribed from the DMV fee page and the statute it cites; both must agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › One car registration, line by line
Keep Colorado Wild park pass
$29
2026
FACT optional transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts State parks pass added to a Colorado vehicle registration unless the registrant declines it. Opt-out since 3 January 2023.
The DMV fee page calls this a pass residents "can opt in to"; the DMV's own FAQ says it is "automatically included, or opted-in" unless the owner opts out. The FAQ is followed because it states the statutory mechanism. Both sentences are quoted on the page.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Keep Colorado Wild Pass — Frequently Asked Questions
Open the source document ↗
Establishes that the $29 park pass is OPT-OUT: "the Keep Colorado Wild Pass will automatically be included, or opted-in, to vehicle registrations ... they will need to opt-out for that vehicle during registration to not be charged." This CONTRADICTS the same department's fee page on the same host, which calls it a pass residents "can opt in to". Both are quoted on the page; the FAQ is followed because it is the one that states the statutory mechanism. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What one registration comes to
What you pay › What one registration comes to
Specific Ownership Tax, one vehicle
$122.40
2026
CALC tax derived
Link to this measure
What this counts Total tax on one annual Colorado vehicle registration for the stated vehicle.
CALC. No published total exists to check this against.
How this figure was reached Sum of the 1 tax line(s) on the worked receipt for a 2019 vehicle, 4000 lbs, MSRP $32,000, registered 2026, inside the emissions program area. NOT PUBLISHED BY ANY GOVERNMENT SOURCE — every input is FACT from the publisher, the addition is ours.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total fee on one annual Colorado vehicle registration for the stated vehicle.
CALC. No published total exists to check this against.
How this figure was reached Sum of the 14 fee line(s) on the worked receipt for a 2019 vehicle, 4000 lbs, MSRP $32,000, registered 2026, inside the emissions program area. NOT PUBLISHED BY ANY GOVERNMENT SOURCE — every input is FACT from the publisher, the addition is ours.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › What one registration comes to
Registration bill you have to pay, one vehicle
$191.98
2026
CALC mandatory derived
Link to this measure
What this counts Everything a Colorado vehicle registration compels for the stated vehicle: the Specific Ownership Tax plus every fee, excluding the opt-out park pass.
CALC. No published total exists to check this against.
How this figure was reached Every tax and fee line on the worked receipt for a 2019 vehicle, 4000 lbs, MSRP $32,000, registered 2026, inside the emissions program area. NOT PUBLISHED BY ANY GOVERNMENT SOURCE — every input is FACT from the publisher, the addition is ours.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › What one registration comes to
Registration bill if you decline nothing, one vehicle
$220.98
2026
CALC default derived
Link to this measure
What this counts Everything charged on one annual Colorado vehicle registration for the stated vehicle when the registrant declines nothing — the mandatory bill plus the opt-out park pass.
CALC. No published total exists to check this against.
How this figure was reached The mandatory bill plus the opt-out park pass on the worked receipt for a 2019 vehicle, 4000 lbs, MSRP $32,000, registered 2026, inside the emissions program area. NOT PUBLISHED BY ANY GOVERNMENT SOURCE — every input is FACT from the publisher, the addition is ours.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Property tax, county by county
What this counts The mill levy of Adams County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Alamosa County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Arapahoe County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line. On Arapahoe County’s own assessor sheet, this total prints as two lines: a county line that already folds in an abatement mill, and a separate developmental-disability line. The two add to the same total published here.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Archuleta County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Baca County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Bent County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Boulder County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Property tax, county by county
Broomfield County own mill levy
Not published
2025
PENDING reconciled
The publisher has not put it out.
The publisher does carry a row for this, and the row states nothing: no levy, on no assessed value. That is a gap in the source, so it is left blank. Showing it as zero would be publishing a figure, and the figure would be wrong.
See the property-tax section →
Link to this measure
What this counts The mill levy of Broomfield County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line. Consolidated city and county, so this is the combined municipal and county levy. NOT PUBLISHED: the source carries this city-and-county row with no levy and no assessed value, so its own levy is absent here. Shown as unpublished rather than as zero, because zero is a claim and that one would be false.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Chaffee County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Cheyenne County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Clear Creek County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Conejos County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Costilla County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Crowley County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Custer County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Delta County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Denver County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line. Consolidated city and county, so this is the combined municipal and county levy.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Dolores County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Douglas County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Eagle County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of El Paso County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Elbert County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Fremont County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Garfield County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Gilpin County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Grand County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Gunnison County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Hinsdale County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Huerfano County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Jackson County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Jefferson County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Kiowa County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Kit Carson County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of La Plata County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Lake County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Larimer County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Las Animas County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Lincoln County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Logan County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Mesa County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Mineral County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Moffat County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Montezuma County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Montrose County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Morgan County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Otero County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Ouray County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Park County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Phillips County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Pitkin County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Prowers County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Pueblo County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Rio Blanco County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Rio Grande County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Routt County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Saguache County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of San Juan County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of San Miguel County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Sedgwick County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Summit County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Teller County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Washington County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Weld County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The mill levy of Yuma County's own government for tax year 2025, never the whole of a property tax bill: a household also pays its school district and any fire, water, sanitation or metropolitan district containing the property. This county total can itself combine more than one taxing authority, so the county may print it on the actual bill as more than one line.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What share of a home is taxed
What this counts Residential assessment rate — local government for tax year 2025. Residential property carries TWO assessment rates from 2025: one applies to school district mills, the other to every other authority. They are never interchangeable.
Transcribed from the Division of Property Taxation and reconciled against the worked calculation that department publishes.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation Understanding Property Taxes in Colorado
Open the source document ↗
Carries the 2026 assessment rate table AND a fully worked calculation this module reconciles against. Used INSTEAD of dpt.colorado.gov/assessment-rates, which is broken: HTTP 200, headings render, and a Drupal error with a PHP backtrace appears where the figures should be. This publisher's site also refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Residential assessment rate — schools for tax year 2025. Residential property carries TWO assessment rates from 2025: one applies to school district mills, the other to every other authority. They are never interchangeable.
Transcribed from the Division of Property Taxation and reconciled against the worked calculation that department publishes.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation Understanding Property Taxes in Colorado
Open the source document ↗
Carries the 2026 assessment rate table AND a fully worked calculation this module reconciles against. Used INSTEAD of dpt.colorado.gov/assessment-rates, which is broken: HTTP 200, headings render, and a Drupal error with a PHP backtrace appears where the figures should be. This publisher's site also refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Property tax collected, statewide
What you pay › Property tax collected, statewide
Colorado — property tax revenue levied for school districts
$8.47 billion
2025
FACT reconciled
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Property tax levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025 for school districts, as the Division of Property Taxation classifies it. A dollar amount levied, NOT a mill levy — the rate is a different measure and lives elsewhere.
Read from Section XII of the Division of Property Taxation's annual report. Every row is checked against its own printed total and every column against the printed statewide row, both within the publisher's whole-dollar rounding.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Property tax collected, statewide
Colorado — property tax revenue levied for local college districts
$188.5 million
2025
FACT reconciled
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Property tax levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025 for local college districts, as the Division of Property Taxation classifies it. A dollar amount levied, NOT a mill levy — the rate is a different measure and lives elsewhere.
Read from Section XII of the Division of Property Taxation's annual report. Every row is checked against its own printed total and every column against the printed statewide row, both within the publisher's whole-dollar rounding.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Property tax collected, statewide
Colorado — property tax revenue levied for county
$3.74 billion
2025
FACT reconciled
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Property tax levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025 for county, as the Division of Property Taxation classifies it. A dollar amount levied, NOT a mill levy — the rate is a different measure and lives elsewhere.
Read from Section XII of the Division of Property Taxation's annual report. Every row is checked against its own printed total and every column against the printed statewide row, both within the publisher's whole-dollar rounding.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Property tax collected, statewide
Colorado — property tax revenue levied for cities and towns
$733.7 million
2025
FACT reconciled
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Property tax levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025 for cities and towns, as the Division of Property Taxation classifies it. A dollar amount levied, NOT a mill levy — the rate is a different measure and lives elsewhere.
Read from Section XII of the Division of Property Taxation's annual report. Every row is checked against its own printed total and every column against the printed statewide row, both within the publisher's whole-dollar rounding.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Property tax collected, statewide
Colorado — property tax revenue levied for special districts
$3.51 billion
2025
FACT reconciled
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Property tax levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025 for special districts, as the Division of Property Taxation classifies it. A dollar amount levied, NOT a mill levy — the rate is a different measure and lives elsewhere.
Read from Section XII of the Division of Property Taxation's annual report. Every row is checked against its own printed total and every column against the printed statewide row, both within the publisher's whole-dollar rounding.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Property tax collected, statewide
Colorado — total property tax revenue levied
$16.63 billion
2025
FACT reconciled
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Every dollar of property tax levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025, across all five classes of taxing authority. This is the DENOMINATOR C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys on when a county treasurer divides specific ownership tax revenue: "the aggregate dollar amount of ad valorem taxes levied in such county during the preceding calendar year". A dollar amount levied, NOT a mill levy — the rate is a different measure and lives elsewhere.
Read from Section XII of the Division of Property Taxation's annual report. Every row is checked against its own printed total and every column against the printed statewide row, both within the publisher's whole-dollar rounding.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Who property tax goes to, statewide
What you pay › Who property tax goes to, statewide
Colorado — share of property tax going to school districts
50.9%
2025
CALC derived
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Of every property tax dollar levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025, the share levied for school districts. This is the CLASSIFICATION split. C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) apportions specific ownership tax between the county and EACH political and governmental subdivision inside it, one entity at a time; this report aggregates those entities into five classes, so the shares here show the shape of the split and are not the apportionment itself.
Computed from two figures the report prints, then checked against the share the same report prints for the same cell in its own percent table.
How this figure was reached $8,468,721,068 levied for school districts divided by the printed total of $16,634,794,288 = 50.9%. The Division of Property Taxation prints 50.9% for this same cell in its own percent table, and the two agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Who property tax goes to, statewide
Colorado — share of property tax going to local college districts
1.1%
2025
CALC derived
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Of every property tax dollar levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025, the share levied for local college districts. This is the CLASSIFICATION split. C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) apportions specific ownership tax between the county and EACH political and governmental subdivision inside it, one entity at a time; this report aggregates those entities into five classes, so the shares here show the shape of the split and are not the apportionment itself.
Computed from two figures the report prints, then checked against the share the same report prints for the same cell in its own percent table.
How this figure was reached $188,462,641 levied for local college districts divided by the printed total of $16,634,794,288 = 1.1%. The Division of Property Taxation prints 1.1% for this same cell in its own percent table, and the two agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Who property tax goes to, statewide
Colorado — share of property tax going to county
22.5%
2025
CALC derived
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Of every property tax dollar levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025, the share levied for county. This is the CLASSIFICATION split. C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) apportions specific ownership tax between the county and EACH political and governmental subdivision inside it, one entity at a time; this report aggregates those entities into five classes, so the shares here show the shape of the split and are not the apportionment itself.
Computed from two figures the report prints, then checked against the share the same report prints for the same cell in its own percent table.
How this figure was reached $3,735,299,756 levied for county divided by the printed total of $16,634,794,288 = 22.5%. The Division of Property Taxation prints 22.5% for this same cell in its own percent table, and the two agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Who property tax goes to, statewide
Colorado — share of property tax going to cities and towns
4.4%
2025
CALC derived
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Of every property tax dollar levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025, the share levied for cities and towns. This is the CLASSIFICATION split. C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) apportions specific ownership tax between the county and EACH political and governmental subdivision inside it, one entity at a time; this report aggregates those entities into five classes, so the shares here show the shape of the split and are not the apportionment itself.
Computed from two figures the report prints, then checked against the share the same report prints for the same cell in its own percent table.
How this figure was reached $733,683,034 levied for cities and towns divided by the printed total of $16,634,794,288 = 4.4%. The Division of Property Taxation prints 4.4% for this same cell in its own percent table, and the two agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Who property tax goes to, statewide
Colorado — share of property tax going to special districts
21.1%
2025
CALC derived
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Of every property tax dollar levied in every county in Colorado added together, as the report prints it for tax year 2025, the share levied for special districts. This is the CLASSIFICATION split. C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) apportions specific ownership tax between the county and EACH political and governmental subdivision inside it, one entity at a time; this report aggregates those entities into five classes, so the shares here show the shape of the split and are not the apportionment itself.
Computed from two figures the report prints, then checked against the share the same report prints for the same cell in its own percent table.
How this figure was reached $3,508,627,789 levied for special districts divided by the printed total of $16,634,794,288 = 21.1%. The Division of Property Taxation prints 21.1% for this same cell in its own percent table, and the two agree.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation 2025 Fifty-Fifth Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
Section XII, "Tax Year 2025 Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Classification" — property tax revenue per county split into school districts, local college districts, the county, cities and towns, and special districts. This is the denominator C.R.S. 42-3-107(24) keys the specific ownership tax split on: the DOLLAR AMOUNT LEVIED, not a mill levy. Filed under section 39-2-119, C.R.S.; transmittal letter dated 11 May 2026; 1,084 pages. Read 2026-09-02. Three things about this document matter to anyone reading it. (1) A figure too wide for its table cell is CLIPPED in the PDF's own text and loses its last digit: Section X prints Adams County Purposes as "$387,871,86" for $387,871,867, and the expenditure table three lines after Section XII does the same, so a figure can read ten times too small with nothing in the document to contradict it. Section XII itself is clean and is the only table read here. (2) The table has 65 name rows for 64 counties: Broomfield appears again as "Broomfield City" repeating the identical County figure, and the printed statewide total INCLUDES it, so dropping the row leaves the County column $70,298,964 short. (3) Whole-dollar rounding of cent-level data means 21 of 66 rows do not add across, each by $1 or $2, and columns are out by up to $5. The Colorado State Publications Library (spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/locserials/loc81internet/) carries the series for 1971-2024 and is byte-identical (MD5 ec98a21fc0c11a2a742a614c8edc7555) for 2024, the one year both hosts serve. The same report states the TAX YEAR 2025 residential assessment rates and the determination behind them: "The Board certified the growth was 4.27%. With the growth being less than or equal to 5%, for the purpose of a levy imposed by a school district, 7.05% of the actual value is used, and for the purpose of a levy imposed by a local government entity that is not a school district, 6.25%". It is the only source found that resolves the conditional HB24B-1001 wrote (the fiscal note gives 6.25% or 6.15% depending on growth), because the Division's own assessment-rates pages both serve an error where the table should be. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The flat income tax
What this counts The rate Colorado charges on Colorado taxable income, which the Department of Revenue also calls modified federal taxable income. ONE RATE FOR EVERY INCOME — there are no brackets — but NOT constant over time: it has been 4.25%, 4.4%, 4.5% and 4.55% in the last seven years, because § 39-22-627, C.R.S. temporarily reduces it in a year following a TABOR surplus. It is charged on taxable income and NEVER on a salary; an alternative minimum tax may apply on top.
Transcribed from the Department of Revenue's rate table and, for the years it publishes a booklet, re-derived from all 502 bands of that year's printed tax table.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Taxation Division Individual Income Tax Guide (revised January 2026)
Open the source document ↗
Carries the rate-by-year table and the definition of Colorado taxable income as "modified federal taxable income". THE LANDING PAGE IS NOT THE SOURCE: tax.colorado.gov/individual-income-tax returns 200 and is pure navigation with no rate on it, so a probe that stopped there would conclude the publisher does not state its own tax rate. HOST NOTE: needs a browser user agent, as the register expects domain-wide, but it DOES discriminate — an invented route (/current-tax-rates) 404s, unlike dola.colorado.gov/dlg_lgis_ui_pu/ and geodata.colorado.gov. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The tax on a STATED Colorado taxable income of $50,000, shown so the rate can be read as money. It is a declared example, not a typical household and not a median — and it is NOT the tax on a $50,000 salary, which would be lower, because taxable income is what remains after the federal standard deduction and Colorado's own subtractions.
CALC: the transcribed rate for the year applied to the stated taxable income.
How this figure was reached $50,000 of STATED Colorado taxable income × the 4.4% rate the Department of Revenue prints for tax year 2025. $50,000 sits above the publisher's printed tax table, which ends just under that, so the rate applies directly rather than through a band midpoint — the same arithmetic in every year. NOT the tax on a $50,000 salary: taxable income is what remains after the federal standard deduction and Colorado's own additions and subtractions.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Taxation Division Individual Income Tax Guide (revised January 2026)
Open the source document ↗
Carries the rate-by-year table and the definition of Colorado taxable income as "modified federal taxable income". THE LANDING PAGE IS NOT THE SOURCE: tax.colorado.gov/individual-income-tax returns 200 and is pure navigation with no rate on it, so a probe that stopped there would conclude the publisher does not state its own tax rate. HOST NOTE: needs a browser user agent, as the register expects domain-wide, but it DOES discriminate — an invented route (/current-tax-rates) 404s, unlike dola.colorado.gov/dlg_lgis_ui_pu/ and geodata.colorado.gov. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The temporary tax credit, county by county
What this counts The temporary tax credit on Cheyenne County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on Elbert County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on Douglas County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on Jackson County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on Jefferson County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on Grand County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on Prowers County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on San Juan County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on Fremont County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on San Miguel County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on Clear Creek County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The temporary tax credit on Conejos County's own levy — a NEGATIVE line, and one a county may drop or add in any year without an election. It is how a government returns revenue it is not permitted to keep.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The total county levy
What this counts Cheyenne County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Elbert County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Douglas County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Jackson County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Jefferson County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Grand County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Prowers County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts San Juan County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Fremont County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts San Miguel County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Clear Creek County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Conejos County's own total mill levy, all components including the temporary tax credit. ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole.
Re-derived from the publisher's eleven levy components and checked against its own printed TOTAL_LEVY on every row, in both vintages.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
How many counties changed the credit
What this counts Counties whose own levy carried a temporary tax credit in one of the two published tax years and not the other, or a different one.
Counted from the two levy vintages after excluding the three counties whose 2024 row does not reconcile.
How this figure was reached Counted across the two published levy vintages (tax years 2024 and 2025), county-category rows with an assessed value only, excluding Lake, Logan and Summit whose 2024 rows do not reconcile against their own printed totals. A county is counted as raised or lowered ONLY where the credit changed and no other levy component moved, so the change in the printed total equals the change in the credit exactly.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Counties where the temporary tax credit ended, NO other levy component moved, and the printed total therefore rose by exactly the credit.
Counted from the two levy vintages after excluding the three counties whose 2024 row does not reconcile.
How this figure was reached Counted across the two published levy vintages (tax years 2024 and 2025), county-category rows with an assessed value only, excluding Lake, Logan and Summit whose 2024 rows do not reconcile against their own printed totals. A county is counted as raised or lowered ONLY where the credit changed and no other levy component moved, so the change in the printed total equals the change in the credit exactly.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Counties where a temporary tax credit was added, NO other levy component moved, and the printed total therefore fell by exactly the credit.
Counted from the two levy vintages after excluding the three counties whose 2024 row does not reconcile.
How this figure was reached Counted across the two published levy vintages (tax years 2024 and 2025), county-category rows with an assessed value only, excluding Lake, Logan and Summit whose 2024 rows do not reconcile against their own printed totals. A county is counted as raised or lowered ONLY where the credit changed and no other levy component moved, so the change in the printed total equals the change in the credit exactly.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Counties with a published own levy in both tax years. Three are excluded because their 2024 row does not reconcile against its own printed total.
Counted from the two levy vintages after excluding the three counties whose 2024 row does not reconcile.
How this figure was reached Counted across the two published levy vintages (tax years 2024 and 2025), county-category rows with an assessed value only, excluding Lake, Logan and Summit whose 2024 rows do not reconcile against their own printed totals. A county is counted as raised or lowered ONLY where the credit changed and no other levy component moved, so the change in the printed total equals the change in the credit exactly.
Where it came from Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology / Department of Local Affairs PropTaxMap — Levies (taxing districts/authorities in Colorado)
Open the source document ↗
One row per taxing authority per subdistrict, with every levy component, the assessed value it applies to, and the revenue raised. 5,053 rows for tax year 2025; a 2024 service exists at the same shape. HOST NOTES: the service discriminates — an invented service name on the same host returns {"error":{"code":400,"message":"Invalid URL"}}, so a 200 here is evidence. The Hub front end at geodata.colorado.gov does NOT — it returns 200 for an invented layer, so never probe there. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The state sales tax rate
What this counts The rate Colorado charges on a taxable retail sale, everywhere in the state. It is the ONLY part of a sales tax rate that does not depend on the address: a county, a city and any special district containing the address may each add their own, and 70 home-rule cities set and collect their own tax which the Department does not administer.
State rate transcribed from the Colorado Sales Tax Guide; counts derived from the Department's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Taxation Division Colorado Sales Tax Guide (revised May 2026)
Open the source document ↗
States the 2.9% state rate outright, and states in its own words that the Department does not administer the sales taxes of certain home-rule cities. FILENAME NOTE: dated MAY 2026, where the same publisher's income tax guide is dated JANUARY 2026 — the month is not a convention, and a guessed filename 404s (this host does discriminate). Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
How the sales tax is spread
What this counts Colorado counties that levy a state-collected county sales tax, of 64.
State rate transcribed from the Colorado Sales Tax Guide; counts derived from the Department's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
How this figure was reached Counted from the Department of Revenue's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties. A row whose name is not one of the 64 is a sub-county rate, not a county — "Pitkin (in Basalt)" is the live case — and is never counted as one. A municipality appears in exactly one of the two city tables; zero appear in both, and the build stops if any ever do.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Colorado counties that levy no county sales tax at all. DELIBERATELY EXCLUDES Denver and Broomfield: they have no county rate row either, but they are consolidated city and counties and levy as cities at over 4%. Counting them here would tell a Denver reader they pay no local sales tax, which is the opposite of true.
State rate transcribed from the Colorado Sales Tax Guide; counts derived from the Department's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
How this figure was reached Counted from the Department of Revenue's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties. A row whose name is not one of the 64 is a sub-county rate, not a county — "Pitkin (in Basalt)" is the live case — and is never counted as one. A municipality appears in exactly one of the two city tables; zero appear in both, and the build stops if any ever do.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Colorado municipalities publishing a sales tax rate, state-collected and self-collecting combined.
State rate transcribed from the Colorado Sales Tax Guide; counts derived from the Department's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
How this figure was reached Counted from the Department of Revenue's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties. A row whose name is not one of the 64 is a sub-county rate, not a county — "Pitkin (in Basalt)" is the live case — and is never counted as one. A municipality appears in exactly one of the two city tables; zero appear in both, and the build stops if any ever do.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Home-rule cities that administer and collect their own sales tax. The Department of Revenue does not collect it and its rate publication does not cover it; the State publishes a direct contact number for each instead.
State rate transcribed from the Colorado Sales Tax Guide; counts derived from the Department's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
How this figure was reached Counted from the Department of Revenue's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties. A row whose name is not one of the 64 is a sub-county rate, not a county — "Pitkin (in Basalt)" is the live case — and is never counted as one. A municipality appears in exactly one of the two city tables; zero appear in both, and the build stops if any ever do.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Special districts levying their own sales tax — lodging, metropolitan, transportation, health services and others. Each applies only inside its own boundary, so they are never summed.
State rate transcribed from the Colorado Sales Tax Guide; counts derived from the Department's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
How this figure was reached Counted from the Department of Revenue's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties. A row whose name is not one of the 64 is a sub-county rate, not a county — "Pitkin (in Basalt)" is the live case — and is never counted as one. A municipality appears in exactly one of the two city tables; zero appear in both, and the build stops if any ever do.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Distinct combinations of exemption codes among the county sales tax rows. More than one means the BASE differs between counties, so two counties charging the same rate can be taxing different things — and a rate alone does not give a bill.
State rate transcribed from the Colorado Sales Tax Guide; counts derived from the Department's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
How this figure was reached Counted from the Department of Revenue's own rate tables on data.colorado.gov, against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties. A row whose name is not one of the 64 is a sub-county rate, not a county — "Pitkin (in Basalt)" is the live case — and is never counted as one. A municipality appears in exactly one of the two city tables; zero appear in both, and the build stops if any ever do.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Sales tax, county by county
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Adams County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Alamosa County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Arapahoe County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Archuleta County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Baca County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Baca County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Bent County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Boulder County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Broomfield County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED here: Broomfield is a consolidated city and county and levies as a CITY, at over 4%. It is emphatically not untaxed.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Chaffee County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Cheyenne County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Cheyenne County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Clear Creek County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Conejos County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Conejos County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Costilla County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Crowley County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Custer County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Delta County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Denver County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED here: Denver is a consolidated city and county and levies as a CITY, at over 4%. It is emphatically not untaxed.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Dolores County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Dolores County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Douglas County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Eagle County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in El Paso County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Elbert County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Fremont County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Garfield County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Gilpin County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Gilpin County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Grand County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Gunnison County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Hinsdale County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Huerfano County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Jackson County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Jefferson County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Kiowa County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Kiowa County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Kit Carson County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Kit Carson County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in La Plata County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Lake County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Larimer County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Las Animas County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Lincoln County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Logan County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Mesa County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Mineral County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Moffat County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Montezuma County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Montezuma County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Montrose County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Morgan County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Morgan County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Otero County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Ouray County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Park County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Phillips County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Pitkin County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Prowers County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Pueblo County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Rio Blanco County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Rio Grande County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Routt County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Saguache County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in San Juan County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in San Miguel County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Sedgwick County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Summit County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Teller County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Washington County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Weld County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Weld County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate collected at COUNTY LEVEL on a taxable sale in Yuma County — NOT "the county's own" tax, because five counties publish a rate that bundles a mass transit or health service district inside it, and the publisher says so on the row. It is one layer of a total that also carries the state rate, any city rate, and any special district containing the address. NOT PUBLISHED: Yuma County levies no county sales tax at all.
From the Department of Revenue's own county rate table on data.colorado.gov, taken against a roster of all 64 Colorado counties.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The two cities a ZIP can reach
What this counts The general rate the City and County of Denver charges on a taxable retail sale. The basis is the rate the Denver Revised Municipal Code imposes on the purchase price of a retail sale. Denver is a consolidated city and county. So this is one of only two city sales taxes in Colorado that follow from a ZIP. Every address in the county is in the city. It is ONE layer of what a register charges. The state rate sits under it, and any special district covering the address sits on top. This is the GENERAL rate. Denver sets separate rates for food and beverage for immediate consumption, car rentals of under thirty days, recreational marijuana, aviation fuel. None of those is used here. The publisher states effective 1 January 2025.
Transcribed from each city's OWN publication. Re-verified on every run against the sentence it was read from. Denver and Broomfield are the only Colorado cities a ZIP can reach. Each is a consolidated city and county, so the county a ZIP resolves to IS the city. The Department of Revenue's own listing is deliberately not the source. It does not administer these taxes and says so. It is currently 0.84 points low on Denver, and exact on Broomfield.
How this figure was reached Read from Denver's own publication. Reconciled against a second publication by the same publisher. Effective 2025-01-01, stated by the publisher's own rate sheet.
Where it came from City and County of Denver, Department of Finance, Treasury Division Denver Tax Guide Topic No. 70 — Sales Tax (revised 03/2026)
Open the source document ↗
States the general rate in one sentence: "The Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) imposes a 5.15% sales tax on the purchase price paid or charged on retail sales". Names four special rates separately. TRAP INSIDE IT: the recreational marijuana line reads "A nine and eighty-one one hundredths percent (10.65%)" — the words and the figure disagree, so a figure taken from this document must come from a line whose words and digits match. The host discriminates: an invented path on it returns a real 404. Read 2026-08-14.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The general rate the City and County of Broomfield charges on a taxable retail sale. The basis is the Broomfield line of the city's own rates-by-jurisdiction table, remitted to Broomfield rather than to the State. Broomfield is a consolidated city and county. So this is one of only two city sales taxes in Colorado that follow from a ZIP. Every address in the county is in the city. It is ONE layer of what a register charges. The state rate sits under it, and any special district covering the address sits on top. This is the GENERAL rate. Sales inside Broomfield's 2 improvement districts carry more. The publisher states no effective date published.
Transcribed from each city's OWN publication. Re-verified on every run against the sentence it was read from. Denver and Broomfield are the only Colorado cities a ZIP can reach. Each is a consolidated city and county, so the county a ZIP resolves to IS the city. The Department of Revenue's own listing is deliberately not the source. It does not administer these taxes and says so. It is currently 0.84 points low on Denver, and exact on Broomfield.
How this figure was reached Read from Broomfield's own publication. Reconciled against a second publication by the same publisher. The publisher states no effective date for this rate, in either publication. The page says so rather than implying a currency it has not got.
Where it came from City and County of Broomfield, Sales Tax Administration City and County of Broomfield — Sales Tax Rates
Open the source document ↗
Carries a jurisdiction table naming who each part is remitted to, and a printed citywide total of 8.15% to reconcile against. STATES NO EFFECTIVE DATE ANYWHERE, and the only date-like string in it is its own source filename in the footer, "salestax rates- 2013.docx". That is not evidence the rate is from 2013 — a .docx gets edited — but it is the whole of what this publisher says about when its rate began, and the page says so rather than implying a currency it has not got. Read 2026-08-14.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate the Colorado Department of Revenue's self-collecting city table lists for Denver. It is published BESIDE Denver's own figure, never instead of it. The Department does not administer this tax. It states that its publication covers only the taxes it does administer. So its listing is a courtesy, not a statement of the rate in force. It is 0.84 percentage points below what the city itself publishes.
Transcribed from each city's OWN publication. Re-verified on every run against the sentence it was read from. Denver and Broomfield are the only Colorado cities a ZIP can reach. Each is a consolidated city and county, so the county a ZIP resolves to IS the city. The Department of Revenue's own listing is deliberately not the source. It does not administer these taxes and says so. It is currently 0.84 points low on Denver, and exact on Broomfield.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The rate the Colorado Department of Revenue's self-collecting city table lists for Broomfield. It is published BESIDE Broomfield's own figure, never instead of it. The Department does not administer this tax. It states that its publication covers only the taxes it does administer. So its listing is a courtesy, not a statement of the rate in force. It agrees with the city exactly. That is what makes the gap on the other one a fact about one listing, not a complaint about the table.
Transcribed from each city's OWN publication. Re-verified on every run against the sentence it was read from. Denver and Broomfield are the only Colorado cities a ZIP can reach. Each is a consolidated city and county, so the county a ZIP resolves to IS the city. The Department of Revenue's own listing is deliberately not the source. It does not administer these taxes and says so. It is currently 0.84 points low on Denver, and exact on Broomfield.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue via data.colorado.gov State-collected city and county sales tax rates, self-collecting city rates, and district rates
Open the source document ↗
wx84-he7r (state-collected cities), h5yt-egtp (counties), nd6a-59yu (self-collecting home-rule cities), kch9-6p6i (districts). USED INSTEAD OF DR 1002, the canonical rate publication, because DR 1002 is now a Google Looker Studio dashboard: it returns 200 and a JavaScript shell with no rate anywhere in the HTML. Scope the catalog with ?domains=data.colorado.gov or it returns other states. Read 2026-08-10.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts What a register in Denver charges, on Denver's own combined rate sheet. It carries the city rate, the state rate, the Regional Transportation District and the Cultural Facilities District. The publisher sums them and prints the total itself. It is quoted here, never computed — this repo does not add rates together. Every part of it is inside the publisher's own total. It is NOT what follow-your-dollar adds up. That page carries the state and city lines and leaves district money open. Its figure is deliberately the smaller one.
Transcribed from each city's OWN publication. Re-verified on every run against the sentence it was read from. Denver and Broomfield are the only Colorado cities a ZIP can reach. Each is a consolidated city and county, so the county a ZIP resolves to IS the city. The Department of Revenue's own listing is deliberately not the source. It does not administer these taxes and says so. It is currently 0.84 points low on Denver, and exact on Broomfield.
How this figure was reached Printed as a total by Denver's own rate sheet. It is checked against that sheet's own printed components on every run. A sheet that stopped agreeing with itself could not be quoted.
Where it came from City and County of Denver, Department of Finance, Treasury Division Denver Combined Tax Rates, effective 1-1-2025
Open the source document ↗
The second statement of the 5.15% rate and the only one carrying an EFFECTIVE DATE. Also the publisher summing its own components — 5.15% Denver + 2.90% State + 1.00% RTD + 0.10% Cultural Facilities District = 9.15% — which is why this page never adds them itself. NOTE THE YEAR IN THE PATH: the 2026 equivalent 404s, so the current sheet is the 2025 one and a guessed filename finds nothing. Read 2026-08-14.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Denver's own published rate minus the rate the Department of Revenue's table lists for it. It is re-derived on every run rather than recorded once. It is a fact about today. The same table is exact on Broomfield. So this is a gap in one listing, not a claim about the Department's table in general.
Transcribed from each city's OWN publication. Re-verified on every run against the sentence it was read from. Denver and Broomfield are the only Colorado cities a ZIP can reach. Each is a consolidated city and county, so the county a ZIP resolves to IS the city. The Department of Revenue's own listing is deliberately not the source. It does not administer these taxes and says so. It is currently 0.84 points low on Denver, and exact on Broomfield.
How this figure was reached Denver's own published rate 5.15% minus the 4.31% the Department of Revenue's self-collecting city table lists for Denver = 0.84 percentage points. Both figures are published, and both are in this dataset beside it, so the subtraction can be checked without leaving the file. The subtraction is the whole of the derivation: no rate is added to any other rate here. Re-measured on every run, because the Department may update its table at any time and a gap recorded once would outlive the condition it describes.
Where it came from City and County of Denver, Department of Finance, Treasury Division Denver Tax Guide Topic No. 70 — Sales Tax (revised 03/2026)
Open the source document ↗
States the general rate in one sentence: "The Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) imposes a 5.15% sales tax on the purchase price paid or charged on retail sales". Names four special rates separately. TRAP INSIDE IT: the recreational marijuana line reads "A nine and eighty-one one hundredths percent (10.65%)" — the words and the figure disagree, so a figure taken from this document must come from a line whose words and digits match. The host discriminates: an invented path on it returns a real 404. Read 2026-08-14.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The schedules already written into law
What you pay › The schedules already written into law
Retail delivery fee
Not published
FY 2027-28
PENDING fee transcribed
The publisher has not put it out.
Link to this measure
What this counts Total retail delivery fee charged on each delivery of taxable goods to a Colorado address, by state fiscal year (July-June). Created by SB21-260; the total is the sum of component fees credited to the Highway Users Tax Fund, the Multimodal Options Fund and five enterprises. The publisher's own printed total is quoted; the components are in each observation's method note and must re-sum to it exactly.
FY 2023-24 on: transcribed from DOR's Retail Delivery Fee Rates page (living page, table fingerprinted). FY 2022-23: the fiscal note's Table 4, which prints SEVEN components where DOR's page prints six — the note splits the state fee into its two funds. The FY 2025-26 total FELL a cent because the Community Access component fell; the dip is guarded so a publisher revision is a finding, not a silent refresh.
How this figure was reached The rate may adjust each July for inflation and the Department is required to publish the new rate by April 15 for the July it takes effect — DOR's own page. Until then this year is blank, never projected: the FY 2025-26 rate FELL, so the mechanism does not even fix the direction.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Taxation Division Retail Delivery Fee Rates
Open the source document ↗
Six components by fiscal year, July 2023 through June 2027, each column summing exactly to its printed total. THE FY 2025-26 TOTAL FELL ($0.29 to $0.28) because the Community Access component fell while the other five rose — quoted as printed, and guarded so the dip disappearing is a finding. Quirks recorded, not corrected: the FY 2024-25 Bridge and Tunnel cell prints "$0.029" with three decimals; headers alternate "To"/"to". The page states rates may adjust each July and the Department must publish the new rate by April 15. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (6) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › The schedules already written into law
Road usage fee on gasoline
Not published
FY 2032-33
PENDING fee transcribed
The publisher has not put it out.
Link to this measure
What this counts Per-gallon road usage fee on gasoline created by SB21-260, by state fiscal year, remitted by fuel distributors to the Highway Users Tax Fund. A FEE in addition to the $0.22-per-gallon gasoline excise TAX, which is a different charge on the same DOR rates page. Phased in FY 2022-23 through the 8-cent level, held through FY 2031-32, indexed to highway construction costs after June 2032.
FY 2023-24 through FY 2031-32: DOR's Fuel Tax & Fee Rates table, read from the column headed "Road Usage Fee" (the Bridge and Tunnel Impact fee in the same table steps on a different schedule). FY 2022-23: the fiscal note, which states the start ("begin at $0.02 per gallon") and the FY 2028-29 endpoint in prose — the DOR table begins at July 2023. The two publishers are reconciled at both endpoints every run.
How this figure was reached After June 2032 the fee is adjusted annually for highway construction cost inflation and the adjusted rate is published by April 15 for the coming July (DOR). Blank until the publisher prints it — never extrapolated from the phase-in.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Taxation Division Fuel Tax & Fee Rates
Open the source document ↗
Prints the road usage fee (RUF) on gasoline by period, July 2023 through June 2032, in the LAST column of a six-fee table whose FIRST column (Bridge and Tunnel Impact fee) steps on a different schedule — the column is selected by header text, never position. Two fiscal years are split into sub-period rows because OTHER fees moved mid-year; the RUF agrees within each pair. One row spans four fiscal years ("July 2028 through June 2032"). Values carry superscript footnote marks. The same page prints the $0.22/gallon gasoline excise TAX, which is not this fee. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › The schedules already written into law
EV road usage equalization fee, battery electric
Not published
FY 2032-33
PENDING fee transcribed
The publisher has not put it out.
Link to this measure
What this counts Annual road usage equalization fee on a battery electric vehicle registration, by state fiscal year — SB21-260's statutory phase-in, FY 2026-27 through FY 2031-32, credited to the Highway Users Tax Fund, indexed to highway construction costs after FY 2031-32. A SEPARATE, ADDITIONAL charge from the pre-existing per-vehicle electric vehicle registration fee (the $50 fee of prior law, which SB21-260 indexed to inflation) — that fee is not part of this series.
The schedule is transcribed once, in co-registration (EV_ROAD_USAGE), from the DMV's Taxes and Fees page, and imported here — one implementation, two surfaces. This module re-reads the DMV table as a second reader and fails on any disagreement.
How this figure was reached The statutory schedule ends FY 2031-32; later years are indexed to highway construction cost inflation and not yet published. Blank, never extrapolated — the same refusal co-registration makes for a single vehicle past the schedule.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › The schedules already written into law
EV road usage equalization fee, plug-in hybrid
Not published
FY 2032-33
PENDING fee transcribed
The publisher has not put it out.
Link to this measure
What this counts Annual road usage equalization fee on a plug-in hybrid vehicle registration, by state fiscal year — SB21-260's statutory phase-in, FY 2026-27 through FY 2031-32, credited to the Highway Users Tax Fund, indexed after FY 2031-32. A SEPARATE, ADDITIONAL charge from the pre-existing per-vehicle electric vehicle registration fee (the $50 fee of prior law, indexed to inflation by SB21-260) — not part of this series.
Same collection as the battery electric series: transcribed once in co-registration, imported here, re-read off the DMV's own table every run.
How this figure was reached The statutory schedule ends FY 2031-32; later years are indexed to highway construction cost inflation and not yet published. Blank, never extrapolated — the same refusal co-registration makes for a single vehicle past the schedule.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Taxes and Fees
Open the source document ↗
Carries the Specific Ownership Tax rate schedule, the FASTER road and bridge safety surcharge weight bands, the electric and plug-in hybrid road usage fee schedule, the age-of-vehicle tiers, and the "Common Registration Fees List" that this module asserts closure against. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Where the road safety surcharge is split
What you pay › Where the road safety surcharge is split
FASTER collections, statewide
$215.8 million
FY2026, 12 months
FACT revenue parsed
Link to this measure
What this counts Everything credited to the Highway Users Tax Fund under the FASTER act (Senate Bill 09-108) in a fiscal year: the road safety surcharge, the daily rental fee, late registration fees, oversize and overweight permits and the unregistered vehicle fine. Statewide only — the Treasury publishes no county-level collections figure, so no per-county share of a registration surcharge exists here or can be derived from this file.
Read from the State Treasurer's FASTER Fiscal Year County Payments workbook, resolved from the distributions page by the publisher's own link text rather than a pinned document id. Four defects in the publisher's files are recorded against this source and re-measured on every run.
How this figure was reached Summed in integer cents from the publisher's own 12 populated monthly cells. The workbook's TOTAL column is a RUNNING SUM in an open fiscal year, so the month count is part of the period label rather than a footnote: two Treasury PDFs of FY 2022 both print a figure headed TOTAL, one covering three months and one covering nine, and neither filename says which. THIS IS A MIXED-BASIS TOTAL: the statutory allocation changed inside this fiscal year — 2 months (from 2025-07-01) on 60/22/18 under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6)(b), then 10 months (from 2025-09-01) on 56/24/20 under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I). The later split was added by Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025), and 80.90 percent of the year's collection falls under it, so this annual figure is on neither share alone.
Where it came from Colorado Department of the Treasury FASTER Fiscal Year County Payments — Highway Users Tax Fund, Senate Bill 09-108 collections and distributions by county and month
Open the source document ↗
The workbook holds TWO fiscal years and drops the third, so each pull is archived. Rows 4-16 are statewide by month and rows 17-78 are one row per county; there is NO per-county collections figure in the file, so no per-county Road Safety Surcharge figure exists and none is derived. 62 counties, not 64: Denver and Broomfield are consolidated city and counties paid through the municipal channel, so their share by county is NOT PUBLISHED here. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. READING TRAP: the printed TOTAL column is a RUNNING SUM in an open year — two legacy PDFs of FY 2022 print $55,609,200.14 and $140,872,291.65 as "TOTAL" for three months and nine, and neither filename says which — so the count of populated months is measured and carried in the period label of every figure. FIVE PUBLISHER DEFECTS, asserted every run so a note cannot outlive the defect it describes: (1) the county sheet cites C.R.S. 43-4-811(1)(c) for the $2,750,000 rail and transit deduction, and (1)(b) is the county reduction while (1)(c) is the municipal $2,250,000 — the legacy PDFs cite it correctly; (2) the CITY workbook's Total FASTER Distributed row is exactly double its collection in every month of both years, so that row is never read from the city file and a sheet failing the equality is refused; (3) the county sheet labels one row "18% County FASTER Distribution" holding the same figure as its "22% County" row, and 22 percent is the statutory share; (4) the workbook's own annual cells on the collection side are rounded caches differing from the sum of their own twelve monthly cells by up to three cents, so every figure here is summed from the monthly cells in integer cents and the gap is bounded at five cents; and (5) THE ROW LABELS ARE STALE — the rows still read "60% State Highway", "22% County" and "18% City" while carrying 56, 24 and 20 percent figures from September 2025, because Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025) added C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I) allocating FASTER revenue 56/24/20 for registration periods beginning on or after 1 September 2025 and before 1 September 2027, and the Treasury did not rename the rows. The money is right and the labels are not, so every share is looked up by the statutory schedule in this module and never by the percentage printed in a row's own name. FY2026 spans both splits: two months on the first and ten on the second. Read 2026-09-02; the act read 2026-09-03.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Where the road safety surcharge is split
FASTER share paid to the state highway fund
$122.5 million
FY2026, 12 months
FACT revenue parsed
Link to this measure
What this counts The share of FASTER collections paid to the state highway fund. THE SHARE IS SET BY STATUTE AND CHANGED INSIDE THIS SERIES: 60 percent under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6)(b)(I) through August 2025, then 56 percent under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I)(A) for any registration period beginning on or after 1 September 2025 and before 1 September 2027, added by Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025). FY2026 spans both — two months on the first and ten on the second — so its annual total is on neither share alone. The Treasury still labels the row "60% State Highway".
Read from the State Treasurer's FASTER Fiscal Year County Payments workbook, resolved from the distributions page by the publisher's own link text rather than a pinned document id. Four defects in the publisher's files are recorded against this source and re-measured on every run.
How this figure was reached Summed in integer cents from the publisher's own 12 populated monthly cells. The workbook's TOTAL column is a RUNNING SUM in an open fiscal year, so the month count is part of the period label rather than a footnote: two Treasury PDFs of FY 2022 both print a figure headed TOTAL, one covering three months and one covering nine, and neither filename says which. THIS IS A MIXED-BASIS TOTAL: the statutory allocation changed inside this fiscal year — 2 months (from 2025-07-01) on 60/22/18 under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6)(b), then 10 months (from 2025-09-01) on 56/24/20 under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I). The later split was added by Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025), and 80.90 percent of the year's collection falls under it, so this annual figure is on neither share alone.
Where it came from Colorado Department of the Treasury FASTER Fiscal Year County Payments — Highway Users Tax Fund, Senate Bill 09-108 collections and distributions by county and month
Open the source document ↗
The workbook holds TWO fiscal years and drops the third, so each pull is archived. Rows 4-16 are statewide by month and rows 17-78 are one row per county; there is NO per-county collections figure in the file, so no per-county Road Safety Surcharge figure exists and none is derived. 62 counties, not 64: Denver and Broomfield are consolidated city and counties paid through the municipal channel, so their share by county is NOT PUBLISHED here. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. READING TRAP: the printed TOTAL column is a RUNNING SUM in an open year — two legacy PDFs of FY 2022 print $55,609,200.14 and $140,872,291.65 as "TOTAL" for three months and nine, and neither filename says which — so the count of populated months is measured and carried in the period label of every figure. FIVE PUBLISHER DEFECTS, asserted every run so a note cannot outlive the defect it describes: (1) the county sheet cites C.R.S. 43-4-811(1)(c) for the $2,750,000 rail and transit deduction, and (1)(b) is the county reduction while (1)(c) is the municipal $2,250,000 — the legacy PDFs cite it correctly; (2) the CITY workbook's Total FASTER Distributed row is exactly double its collection in every month of both years, so that row is never read from the city file and a sheet failing the equality is refused; (3) the county sheet labels one row "18% County FASTER Distribution" holding the same figure as its "22% County" row, and 22 percent is the statutory share; (4) the workbook's own annual cells on the collection side are rounded caches differing from the sum of their own twelve monthly cells by up to three cents, so every figure here is summed from the monthly cells in integer cents and the gap is bounded at five cents; and (5) THE ROW LABELS ARE STALE — the rows still read "60% State Highway", "22% County" and "18% City" while carrying 56, 24 and 20 percent figures from September 2025, because Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025) added C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I) allocating FASTER revenue 56/24/20 for registration periods beginning on or after 1 September 2025 and before 1 September 2027, and the Treasury did not rename the rows. The money is right and the labels are not, so every share is looked up by the statutory schedule in this module and never by the percentage printed in a row's own name. FY2026 spans both splits: two months on the first and ten on the second. Read 2026-09-02; the act read 2026-09-03.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Where the road safety surcharge is split
FASTER share paid to counties
$51.0 million
FY2026, 12 months
FACT revenue parsed
Link to this measure
What this counts The share of FASTER collections paid to county treasurers. THE SHARE IS SET BY STATUTE AND CHANGED INSIDE THIS SERIES: 22 percent under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6)(b)(II) through August 2025, then 24 percent under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I)(B) for any registration period beginning on or after 1 September 2025 and before 1 September 2027, added by Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025). FY2026 spans both — two months on the first and ten on the second — so its annual total is on neither share alone. The Treasury still labels the row "22% County". This is the pool before the statutory rail and transit deduction, not the amount counties receive.
Read from the State Treasurer's FASTER Fiscal Year County Payments workbook, resolved from the distributions page by the publisher's own link text rather than a pinned document id. Four defects in the publisher's files are recorded against this source and re-measured on every run.
How this figure was reached Summed in integer cents from the publisher's own 12 populated monthly cells. The workbook's TOTAL column is a RUNNING SUM in an open fiscal year, so the month count is part of the period label rather than a footnote: two Treasury PDFs of FY 2022 both print a figure headed TOTAL, one covering three months and one covering nine, and neither filename says which. THIS IS A MIXED-BASIS TOTAL: the statutory allocation changed inside this fiscal year — 2 months (from 2025-07-01) on 60/22/18 under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6)(b), then 10 months (from 2025-09-01) on 56/24/20 under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I). The later split was added by Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025), and 80.90 percent of the year's collection falls under it, so this annual figure is on neither share alone.
Where it came from Colorado Department of the Treasury FASTER Fiscal Year County Payments — Highway Users Tax Fund, Senate Bill 09-108 collections and distributions by county and month
Open the source document ↗
The workbook holds TWO fiscal years and drops the third, so each pull is archived. Rows 4-16 are statewide by month and rows 17-78 are one row per county; there is NO per-county collections figure in the file, so no per-county Road Safety Surcharge figure exists and none is derived. 62 counties, not 64: Denver and Broomfield are consolidated city and counties paid through the municipal channel, so their share by county is NOT PUBLISHED here. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. READING TRAP: the printed TOTAL column is a RUNNING SUM in an open year — two legacy PDFs of FY 2022 print $55,609,200.14 and $140,872,291.65 as "TOTAL" for three months and nine, and neither filename says which — so the count of populated months is measured and carried in the period label of every figure. FIVE PUBLISHER DEFECTS, asserted every run so a note cannot outlive the defect it describes: (1) the county sheet cites C.R.S. 43-4-811(1)(c) for the $2,750,000 rail and transit deduction, and (1)(b) is the county reduction while (1)(c) is the municipal $2,250,000 — the legacy PDFs cite it correctly; (2) the CITY workbook's Total FASTER Distributed row is exactly double its collection in every month of both years, so that row is never read from the city file and a sheet failing the equality is refused; (3) the county sheet labels one row "18% County FASTER Distribution" holding the same figure as its "22% County" row, and 22 percent is the statutory share; (4) the workbook's own annual cells on the collection side are rounded caches differing from the sum of their own twelve monthly cells by up to three cents, so every figure here is summed from the monthly cells in integer cents and the gap is bounded at five cents; and (5) THE ROW LABELS ARE STALE — the rows still read "60% State Highway", "22% County" and "18% City" while carrying 56, 24 and 20 percent figures from September 2025, because Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025) added C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I) allocating FASTER revenue 56/24/20 for registration periods beginning on or after 1 September 2025 and before 1 September 2027, and the Treasury did not rename the rows. The money is right and the labels are not, so every share is looked up by the statutory schedule in this module and never by the percentage printed in a row's own name. FY2026 spans both splits: two months on the first and ten on the second. Read 2026-09-02; the act read 2026-09-03.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Where the road safety surcharge is split
FASTER share paid to cities and incorporated towns
$42.3 million
FY2026, 12 months
FACT revenue parsed
Link to this measure
What this counts The share of FASTER collections paid to cities and incorporated towns. THE SHARE IS SET BY STATUTE AND CHANGED INSIDE THIS SERIES: 18 percent under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6)(b)(III) through August 2025, then 20 percent under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I)(C) for any registration period beginning on or after 1 September 2025 and before 1 September 2027, added by Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025). FY2026 spans both — two months on the first and ten on the second — so its annual total is on neither share alone. The Treasury still labels the row "18% City".
Read from the State Treasurer's FASTER Fiscal Year County Payments workbook, resolved from the distributions page by the publisher's own link text rather than a pinned document id. Four defects in the publisher's files are recorded against this source and re-measured on every run.
How this figure was reached Summed in integer cents from the publisher's own 12 populated monthly cells. The workbook's TOTAL column is a RUNNING SUM in an open fiscal year, so the month count is part of the period label rather than a footnote: two Treasury PDFs of FY 2022 both print a figure headed TOTAL, one covering three months and one covering nine, and neither filename says which. THIS IS A MIXED-BASIS TOTAL: the statutory allocation changed inside this fiscal year — 2 months (from 2025-07-01) on 60/22/18 under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6)(b), then 10 months (from 2025-09-01) on 56/24/20 under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I). The later split was added by Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025), and 80.90 percent of the year's collection falls under it, so this annual figure is on neither share alone.
Where it came from Colorado Department of the Treasury FASTER Fiscal Year County Payments — Highway Users Tax Fund, Senate Bill 09-108 collections and distributions by county and month
Open the source document ↗
The workbook holds TWO fiscal years and drops the third, so each pull is archived. Rows 4-16 are statewide by month and rows 17-78 are one row per county; there is NO per-county collections figure in the file, so no per-county Road Safety Surcharge figure exists and none is derived. 62 counties, not 64: Denver and Broomfield are consolidated city and counties paid through the municipal channel, so their share by county is NOT PUBLISHED here. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. READING TRAP: the printed TOTAL column is a RUNNING SUM in an open year — two legacy PDFs of FY 2022 print $55,609,200.14 and $140,872,291.65 as "TOTAL" for three months and nine, and neither filename says which — so the count of populated months is measured and carried in the period label of every figure. FIVE PUBLISHER DEFECTS, asserted every run so a note cannot outlive the defect it describes: (1) the county sheet cites C.R.S. 43-4-811(1)(c) for the $2,750,000 rail and transit deduction, and (1)(b) is the county reduction while (1)(c) is the municipal $2,250,000 — the legacy PDFs cite it correctly; (2) the CITY workbook's Total FASTER Distributed row is exactly double its collection in every month of both years, so that row is never read from the city file and a sheet failing the equality is refused; (3) the county sheet labels one row "18% County FASTER Distribution" holding the same figure as its "22% County" row, and 22 percent is the statutory share; (4) the workbook's own annual cells on the collection side are rounded caches differing from the sum of their own twelve monthly cells by up to three cents, so every figure here is summed from the monthly cells in integer cents and the gap is bounded at five cents; and (5) THE ROW LABELS ARE STALE — the rows still read "60% State Highway", "22% County" and "18% City" while carrying 56, 24 and 20 percent figures from September 2025, because Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025) added C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I) allocating FASTER revenue 56/24/20 for registration periods beginning on or after 1 September 2025 and before 1 September 2027, and the Treasury did not rename the rows. The money is right and the labels are not, so every share is looked up by the statutory schedule in this module and never by the percentage printed in a row's own name. FY2026 spans both splits: two months on the first and ten on the second. Read 2026-09-02; the act read 2026-09-03.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What you pay › Where the road safety surcharge is split
FASTER money actually distributed to counties
$48.2 million
FY2026, 12 months
FACT revenue parsed
Link to this measure
What this counts The county share of FASTER collections less the $2,750,000 a year that C.R.S. 43-4-811(1)(b) reduces the county allocation by for rail and transit. That share is 22 percent through August 2025 and 24 percent for any registration period beginning on or after 1 September 2025 and before 1 September 2027, added by Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025), so FY2026 spans both. This is the pool the 62 county rows divide, and the figure they sum to.
Read from the State Treasurer's FASTER Fiscal Year County Payments workbook, resolved from the distributions page by the publisher's own link text rather than a pinned document id. Four defects in the publisher's files are recorded against this source and re-measured on every run.
How this figure was reached Summed in integer cents from the publisher's own 12 populated monthly cells. The workbook's TOTAL column is a RUNNING SUM in an open fiscal year, so the month count is part of the period label rather than a footnote: two Treasury PDFs of FY 2022 both print a figure headed TOTAL, one covering three months and one covering nine, and neither filename says which. THIS IS A MIXED-BASIS TOTAL: the statutory allocation changed inside this fiscal year — 2 months (from 2025-07-01) on 60/22/18 under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6)(b), then 10 months (from 2025-09-01) on 56/24/20 under C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I). The later split was added by Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025), and 80.90 percent of the year's collection falls under it, so this annual figure is on neither share alone.
Where it came from Colorado Department of the Treasury FASTER Fiscal Year County Payments — Highway Users Tax Fund, Senate Bill 09-108 collections and distributions by county and month
Open the source document ↗
The workbook holds TWO fiscal years and drops the third, so each pull is archived. Rows 4-16 are statewide by month and rows 17-78 are one row per county; there is NO per-county collections figure in the file, so no per-county Road Safety Surcharge figure exists and none is derived. 62 counties, not 64: Denver and Broomfield are consolidated city and counties paid through the municipal channel, so their share by county is NOT PUBLISHED here. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so it was read with a browser. READING TRAP: the printed TOTAL column is a RUNNING SUM in an open year — two legacy PDFs of FY 2022 print $55,609,200.14 and $140,872,291.65 as "TOTAL" for three months and nine, and neither filename says which — so the count of populated months is measured and carried in the period label of every figure. FIVE PUBLISHER DEFECTS, asserted every run so a note cannot outlive the defect it describes: (1) the county sheet cites C.R.S. 43-4-811(1)(c) for the $2,750,000 rail and transit deduction, and (1)(b) is the county reduction while (1)(c) is the municipal $2,250,000 — the legacy PDFs cite it correctly; (2) the CITY workbook's Total FASTER Distributed row is exactly double its collection in every month of both years, so that row is never read from the city file and a sheet failing the equality is refused; (3) the county sheet labels one row "18% County FASTER Distribution" holding the same figure as its "22% County" row, and 22 percent is the statutory share; (4) the workbook's own annual cells on the collection side are rounded caches differing from the sum of their own twelve monthly cells by up to three cents, so every figure here is summed from the monthly cells in integer cents and the gap is bounded at five cents; and (5) THE ROW LABELS ARE STALE — the rows still read "60% State Highway", "22% County" and "18% City" while carrying 56, 24 and 20 percent figures from September 2025, because Senate Bill 25-258 (chapter 424, signed 4 June 2025) added C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I) allocating FASTER revenue 56/24/20 for registration periods beginning on or after 1 September 2025 and before 1 September 2027, and the Treasury did not rename the rows. The money is right and the labels are not, so every share is looked up by the statutory schedule in this module and never by the percentage printed in a row's own name. FY2026 spans both splits: two months on the first and ten on the second. Read 2026-09-02; the act read 2026-09-03.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The budget
What the state was allowed to spend, and out of which pot.
Departments, as later reported
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $5,554,316,022 General Fund, $2,030,279,577 cash, $144,020,883 reappropriated and $10,488,674,464 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Higher Education for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $1,684,348,869 General Fund, $3,427,837,406 cash, $1,285,949,360 reappropriated and $26,745,298 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Human Services for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $1,322,641,611 General Fund, $462,972,989 cash, $231,164,954 reappropriated and $656,111,906 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Judicial Department for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $878,946,616 General Fund, $203,914,808 cash, $64,466,224 reappropriated and $4,425,000 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Treasury for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $468,270,969 General Fund, $406,379,288 cash, $82,542,698 reappropriated and $0 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $140,042,593 General Fund, $340,847,834 cash, $63,464,208 reappropriated and $324,414,704 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Early Childhood for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $318,425,707 General Fund, $279,083,896 cash, $16,607,388 reappropriated and $188,624,589 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (5) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $61,995,634 General Fund, $348,032,648 cash, $33,678,437 reappropriated and $124,943,835 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Revenue for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $154,779,762 General Fund, $392,072,761 cash, $9,445,211 reappropriated and $852,132 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Governor's Office for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $53,113,284 General Fund, $105,603,846 cash, $385,358,780 reappropriated and $8,855,214 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $57,345,170 General Fund, $421,415,580 cash, $14,587,533 reappropriated and $42,630,060 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $35,040,149 General Fund, $219,791,373 cash, $24,137,360 reappropriated and $217,051,387 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $18,015,198 General Fund, $2,573,123 cash, $26,042 reappropriated and $134,274,426 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Law for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $28,849,741 General Fund, $25,514,253 cash, $94,128,583 reappropriated and $3,934,991 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $3,114,582 General Fund, $125,851,651 cash, $7,623,434 reappropriated and $2,055,639 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year, all fund sources. Operating only — capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated separately and are not included.
JBC Appropriations Report, "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source". An appropriation is money authorized, not money spent — it is not spend-to-date and must never be labeled as such.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds, of which $20,564,403 General Fund, $49,943,501 cash, $3,066,248 reappropriated and $4,719,310 federal. Parsed from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table in the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report. The four fund lines reconcile exactly to the department total the report prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the statewide operating total it prints. Money authorized for the year — not spend-to-date, and not including capital construction or IT capital, which this report appropriates separately.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Departments, as enacted
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Agriculture in part null of section 2, of which $18,429,238 General Fund, $51,932,263 cash, $3,132,026 reappropriated, $4,812,140 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Corrections for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Corrections in part II of section 2, of which $1,190,318,066 General Fund, $46,538,145 cash, $37,540,954 reappropriated, $292,912 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Early Childhood for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Early Childhood in part III of section 2, of which $308,677,824 General Fund, $289,696,534 cash, $15,744,219 reappropriated, $183,936,671 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Education for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Education in part IV of section 2, of which $4,586,880,882 General Fund, $2,371,460,540 cash, $56,341,459 reappropriated, $850,034,726 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Office of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and State Planning and Budgeting for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and State Planning and Budgeting in part null of section 2, of which $54,526,635 General Fund, $103,261,165 cash, $390,853,267 reappropriated, $7,867,165 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Health Care Policy and Financing in part VI of section 2, of which $5,974,155,433 General Fund, $2,485,423,908 cash, $158,419,014 reappropriated, $11,926,962,113 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Higher Education for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Higher Education in part VII of section 2, of which $1,666,524,403 General Fund, $3,589,717,217 cash, $1,276,301,173 reappropriated, $26,639,470 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Human Services for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Human Services in part VIII of section 2, of which $1,351,200,613 General Fund, $496,433,366 cash, $228,184,177 reappropriated, $634,841,802 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Judicial Department for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Judicial in part IX of section 2, of which $922,685,334 General Fund, $219,890,845 cash, $60,092,483 reappropriated, $4,425,000 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Labor and Employment in part null of section 2, of which $32,005,704 General Fund, $226,015,661 cash, $24,085,603 reappropriated, $225,634,830 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Law for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Law in part XI of section 2, of which $32,101,148 General Fund, $29,786,740 cash, $98,011,365 reappropriated, $3,872,902 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Legislative Department for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Legislative in part XII of section 2, of which $8,953,390 General Fund. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Local Affairs in part XIII of section 2, of which $60,054,629 General Fund, $344,412,408 cash, $30,173,240 reappropriated, $125,556,579 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Military and Veterans Affairs in part XIV of section 2, of which $17,541,296 General Fund, $2,181,879 cash, $26,042 reappropriated, $140,864,272 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Natural Resources in part XV of section 2, of which $58,915,963 General Fund, $379,614,435 cash, $10,611,536 reappropriated, $46,177,366 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Personnel for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Personnel in part XVI of section 2, of which $34,708,991 General Fund, $39,254,079 cash, $236,410,080 reappropriated. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Public Health and Environment in part XVII of section 2, of which $131,974,332 General Fund, $335,857,878 cash, $65,387,660 reappropriated, $322,307,366 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Public Safety for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Public Safety in part XVIII of section 2, of which $267,974,174 General Fund, $369,446,133 cash, $93,018,105 reappropriated, $70,437,651 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Regulatory Agencies in part XIX of section 2, of which $3,028,462 General Fund, $125,540,978 cash, $7,481,175 reappropriated, $2,007,726 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Revenue for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Revenue in part XX of section 2, of which $148,484,040 General Fund, $392,963,938 cash, $10,410,776 reappropriated, $852,132 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of State for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to State in part XXI of section 2, of which $46,886,559 cash. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Transportation for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Transportation in part XXII of section 2, of which $1,518,420,857 cash, $1,198,498 reappropriated, $780,173,191 federal. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Total-funds OPERATING appropriation to the Colorado Department of Treasury for the fiscal year, all fund sources, AS ENACTED in the annual Long Bill. Operating only: capital construction and information-technology capital are appropriated in separate sections of the same act and are excluded.
Parsed from the Final Act text of the Long Bill, identified by its session-law chapter. "As enacted in the Long Bill" is narrower than the fiscal year's total appropriation — later acts amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis. An appropriation is money authorized, never money spent.
How this figure was reached Total operating funds appropriated to Treasury in part XXIII of section 2, of which $482,304,850 General Fund, $500,297,571 cash, $83,166,321 reappropriated. Read from the Final Act text of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The fund lines reconcile exactly to the part total the bill prints, and all 23 departments reconcile to the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure it prints, on every fund column. AS ENACTED in this act: later appropriation bills amend it, and the JBC Appropriations Report states the year on a different basis — the two disagree on every comparable department. Money authorized, not money spent.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Statewide totals
What this counts The GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure the Long Bill prints for itself: every department, all fund sources, as enacted.
The bill's own printed statewide total. All 23 departments are reconciled against it on every fund column before anything is published.
How this figure was reached The GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS figure printed in HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026: $17,351,445,407 General Fund, $13,965,033,099 cash, $2,886,589,173 reappropriated, $15,357,696,014 federal. Every one of the 23 departments was reconciled against it on every column. Five superseded versions of this bill are served from the same page at HTTP 200 with totals from $49,513,178,361 to $49,522,967,352 — all of which round to the same "$49.5B" a reader sees — so the version was identified by the bill page's own status and session-law chapter, not by the document.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The 16 departments the $100 receipt groups rather than naming, summed. Exists so the receipt's grouped row has a dataset counterpart of its own.
A grouped row with nothing behind it is a figure nothing verifies — the same reasoning as the federal receipt's "all other functions, net".
How this figure was reached The 16 departments the $100 receipt groups rather than naming, summed: Agriculture, Early Childhood, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and State Planning and Budgeting, Labor and Employment, Law, Legislative, Local Affairs, Military and Veterans Affairs, Natural Resources, Personnel, Public Health and Environment, Public Safety, Regulatory Agencies, Revenue, State, Treasury. Each is published separately as co-longbill-<department>; this row exists so the receipt's grouped line has a counterpart of its own rather than being the one figure on the table that nothing checks.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The General Fund and General Fund Exempt columns of the Long Bill's printed statewide total, added — the only basis on which a General Fund change may be stated between two Long Bills.
SB25-206 prints GENERAL FUND EXEMPT as its own column and HB26-1410 folds it into General Fund with a footnote. Comparing the printed General Fund columns across that change would show a 24.6% fall in a year the General Fund rose.
How this figure was reached General Fund $17,351,445,407 (which includes General Fund Exempt, stated in the footnote rather than as a column) = $17,351,445,407, from the printed statewide total of HB26-1410. The two acts print these differently — SB25-206 gives General Fund Exempt a column of its own and HB26-1410 does not — so this sum is the only basis on which the two years may be compared.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Money displayed in the act but NOT controlled by annual appropriation — enterprises, continuously appropriated funds, federal pass-throughs — marked "(I)" in the bill and stated per fund column in the footnotes to its own statewide total.
Summed from the four column footnotes to the bill's GRAND TOTALS row, the only place the (I) amount is stated statewide. The General Fund footnote states a further amount inside the General Fund Exempt sub-total it also describes; whether that is additive moves the figure by $4,102,074, which does not change it at published precision, and it is excluded and recorded rather than resolved silently.
How this figure was reached Money shown in the act but not controlled by annual appropriation — the "(I)" notation — summed from the four column footnotes to the bill's own statewide total: $406,891,092 + $3,214,037,556 + $252,425,002 + $14,115,120,306. That is 36.3% of the FY 2026-27 operating appropriation, leaving $31,572,289,737 (63.7%) the General Assembly appropriates. The General Fund footnote states a further $4,102,074 inside the General Fund Exempt sub-total it also describes; it is excluded here, and including it would move the share by 0.008 of a percentage point. The share is not comparable year to year: the same footnotes in SB25-206 give 12.8% for FY 2025-26, because this act marks nearly all federal funds "(I)" and its predecessor marked a quarter of them.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Where the money comes from
What this counts The general fund column of the Long Bill's own printed statewide operating total.
One of the four fund columns every department is reconciled against. Published so the fund-source card on the dashboard has a dataset counterpart rather than being a FACT nothing checks.
How this figure was reached General Fund — state income and sales taxes — in the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS row of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026: $17,351,445,407 of $49,560,763,693, 35.0%. This is the same column the 23-department reconciliation runs on, so it is checked by that reconciliation and not separately asserted.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The cash funds column of the Long Bill's own printed statewide operating total.
One of the four fund columns every department is reconciled against. Published so the fund-source card on the dashboard has a dataset counterpart rather than being a FACT nothing checks.
How this figure was reached Cash funds — fees, tuition, severance, lottery — in the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS row of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026: $13,965,033,099 of $49,560,763,693, 28.2%. This is the same column the 23-department reconciliation runs on, so it is checked by that reconciliation and not separately asserted.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The reappropriated funds column of the Long Bill's own printed statewide operating total.
One of the four fund columns every department is reconciled against. Reappropriated funds are money counted twice as it moves between agencies; the operating total includes it and is not a net figure.
How this figure was reached Reappropriated funds — money moving between agencies, counted twice — in the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS row of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026: $2,886,589,173 of $49,560,763,693, 5.8%. This is the same column the 23-department reconciliation runs on, so it is checked by that reconciliation and not separately asserted. Reappropriated funds are double-counted by construction: money already appropriated once, appropriated again as it moves between agencies. Net of it the operating appropriation is $46,674,174,520.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The federal funds column of the Long Bill's own printed statewide operating total.
One of the four fund columns every department is reconciled against. Published so the fund-source card on the dashboard has a dataset counterpart rather than being a FACT nothing checks.
How this figure was reached Federal funds — Medicaid match, highways, education — in the GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS row of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026: $15,357,696,014 of $49,560,763,693, 31.0%. This is the same column the 23-department reconciliation runs on, so it is checked by that reconciliation and not separately asserted.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Capital and IT
What this counts The GRAND TOTALS (CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION) figure printed in section 3 of the Long Bill. A DIFFERENT quantity from the operating appropriation and never added to it.
Section 3 appropriates from the capital construction fund, cash funds and federal funds, and its own printed grand total is what the parse reconciles against.
How this figure was reached The GRAND TOTALS (CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION) figure printed in section 3 of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. A different quantity from the operating appropriation and never added to it: for every $100 of operating budget this act enacted 0¢ of capital construction.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The GRAND TOTALS (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS) figure printed in section 4 of the Long Bill. A third quantity, never added to either of the other two.
Section 4 appropriates from the information technology account within the capital construction fund.
How this figure was reached The GRAND TOTALS (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS) figure printed in section 4 of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. A third quantity, never added to either of the others.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Capital work, line by line
What this counts The Controlled maintenance part of the capital-construction schedule enacted in the Long Bill — one fiscal year, authorized by one act.
The three parts reconcile to the schedule's own printed grand total. NOT a project lifetime cost and never comparable with one: the project ledger publishes multi-year totals, which is why only the controlled-maintenance row can be joined to this series.
How this figure was reached Controlled maintenance — the critical repair backlog across state buildings and campuses. The TOTALS PART figure printed in the capital-construction schedule (section 3) of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The three parts sum exactly to the $160,355,815 grand total the schedule prints for itself. Capital construction is a DIFFERENT quantity from the operating appropriation and from a project's lifetime cost — this is one year, authorized by one act.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The State agencies part of the capital-construction schedule enacted in the Long Bill — one fiscal year, authorized by one act.
The three parts reconcile to the schedule's own printed grand total. NOT a project lifetime cost and never comparable with one: the project ledger publishes multi-year totals, which is why only the controlled-maintenance row can be joined to this series.
How this figure was reached State agency capital renewal, recapitalisation and new construction. The TOTALS PART figure printed in the capital-construction schedule (section 3) of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The three parts sum exactly to the $160,355,815 grand total the schedule prints for itself. Capital construction is a DIFFERENT quantity from the operating appropriation and from a project's lifetime cost — this is one year, authorized by one act.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The Institutions of higher education part of the capital-construction schedule enacted in the Long Bill — one fiscal year, authorized by one act.
The three parts reconcile to the schedule's own printed grand total. NOT a project lifetime cost and never comparable with one: the project ledger publishes multi-year totals, which is why only the controlled-maintenance row can be joined to this series.
How this figure was reached Institutions of higher education capital renewal and recapitalisation. The TOTALS PART figure printed in the capital-construction schedule (section 3) of HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill, enacted as chapter 436 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2026, signed May 8, 2026. The three parts sum exactly to the $160,355,815 grand total the schedule prints for itself. Capital construction is a DIFFERENT quantity from the operating appropriation and from a project's lifetime cost — this is one year, authorized by one act.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Every line item in the capital-construction schedule of the enacted Long Bill — one fiscal year of one act, from a $373,939 foundation repair upward. An APPROPRIATION is not a spend: no Colorado source publishes what these projects have spent, so what one cost in the end is not on this site and is not guessed at. These are also not lifetime project costs, and they are never added to what the state was asked to build.
One year of one act. NOT a project lifetime cost — the project ledger publishes lifetime totals for some of these.
Every one of the 63 (63 published, 0 not) Where it came from Colorado General Assembly HB26-1410, the 2026-27 Long Bill (Session Laws of Colorado 2026, chapter 436)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law →
The enacted annual appropriation act, read as the Final Act text and no other. leg.colorado.gov serves the Introduced, Engrossed, Reengrossed, Revised, Rerevised and Final Act versions of this bill from the SAME page, each split into ~40 per-department PDFs, and their statewide totals span $49,513,178,361 to $49,560,763,693 — every one of which rounds to "$49.5B", so publishing a superseded version would be invisible at the precision a reader sees. The Final Act PDF does not identify itself either: its first page still reads "prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor". Enactment is therefore proved from the bill page's own status block ("Became Law") and its session-law CHAPTER, the way Florida's acts are identified, and only the long_bill_finalact document set is read. Reconciled twice against figures the bill prints itself: each department's fund lines to its own printed part total, and all 23 departments to the printed GRAND TOTALS -- OPERATING BUDGETS on every column. Basis is OPERATING as enacted in this act — capital construction (section 3) and IT capital (section 4) are separate sections and separate figures, and the year's later appropriation bills are not in here. The operating total is also read, on the same basis and by the same two reconciliations, from each earlier Long Bill back to HB16-1405 (FY 2016-17), each identified by its own bill page and chapter; one of them, HB22-1329, disagrees with itself by $3 of General Fund between its department totals and its grand total, and that is declared and asserted to the dollar rather than absorbed; the bill number is never patterned, because HB19-1326, the obvious guess for 2019, is an unrelated enacted bill and the 2019 Long Bill is SB19-207.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record, row by row. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What those requests cost beyond this year
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "DHS: Campus utility infrastructure upgrade, CMHIP ph 2/4 (CR)" summed across the years the document names: $4,144,206 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $0 for FY 2027-28 and $30,543,726 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-campus-utility-infrastructure-upgrade-cmhip, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "DOC: Electronic security system replacement, CSP ph 1/2 (CR)" summed across the years the document names: $748,289 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $6,832,184 for FY 2027-28 and $0 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-electronic-security-system-replacement-csp, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "EDU: CSDB West Hall renovation and addition ph 1/2" summed across the years the document names: $13,778,673 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $15,897,641 for FY 2027-28 and $0 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-csdb-west-hall-renovation-and, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "DPA: Capitol Complex renovation and footprint reduction ph 3/4" summed across the years the document names: $41,450,138 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $15,845,730 for FY 2027-28 and $15,845,730 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-capitol-complex-renovation-and-footprint, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "IHE: Fort Lewis Southwest Campus renewal" summed across the years the document names: $10,006,795 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $11,447,114 for FY 2027-28 and $0 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-fort-lewis-southwest-campus-renewal, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "IHE: CU Boulder Macky Auditorium renovation" summed across the years the document names: $15,601,679 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $15,758,178 for FY 2027-28 and $11,751,131 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-cu-boulder-macky-auditorium-renovation, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "IHE: CSU District heating plant sustainability upgrade (CR)" summed across the years the document names: $10,375,282 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $16,741,262 for FY 2027-28 and $0 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-csu-district-heating-plant-sustainability, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "DHS: Denver region youth service center replacement" summed across the years the document names: $984,500 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $11,786,000 for FY 2027-28 and $35,358,000 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-denver-region-youth-service-center, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "IHE: Lamar CC Trustees Building renovation" summed across the years the document names: $6,618,378 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $10,207,949 for FY 2027-28 and $0 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-lamar-cc-trustees-building-renovation, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "IHE: CU Boulder Guggenheim Geography Building renovation" summed across the years the document names: $5,022,196 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $19,200,888 for FY 2027-28 and $0 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-cu-boulder-guggenheim-geography-building, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "DMVA: Veterans Memorial Cemetery improvements ph 1/2" summed across the years the document names: $2,211,493 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $0 for FY 2027-28 and $1,798,199 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-veterans-memorial-cemetery-improvements, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "IHE: CU Boulder Economics Building renovation" summed across the years the document names: $3,605,767 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $11,691,102 for FY 2027-28 and $0 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-cu-boulder-economics-building-renovation, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "IHE: CSU Physiology Building (CR)" summed across the years the document names: $13,500,825 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $8,998,150 for FY 2027-28 and $0 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-csu-physiology-building, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "IHE: CSU Plant Sciences Building (CR)" summed across the years the document names: $11,467,163 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $8,366,947 for FY 2027-28 and $0 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-csu-plant-sciences-building, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "IHE: CMU Allied Health relocation" summed across the years the document names: $3,453,428 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $38,349,969 for FY 2027-28 and $0 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-cmu-allied-health-relocation, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts A FY 2026-27 capital request plus the cost the same request states for FY 2027-28 and for later years, as the figure-setting document prints those two columns.
DERIVED, and a DIFFERENT quantity from the request beside it — a distinction that is not academic. CU Boulder’s Guggenheim Geography renovation was published on the dashboard at ≈$24.2M, which is exactly this sum, and was corrected to the $5,022,196 request in a public corrections-log entry. Emitted so the two can be told apart and checked, never so the larger one can stand in for the request. It is also NOT a lifetime cost: the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so money already spent on earlier phases is not in it.
How this figure was reached "DPA: Capitol Grounds Renovation (CR)" summed across the years the document names: $1,300,115 requested for FY 2026-27, plus $2,498,645 for FY 2027-28 and $2,289,096 stated for later years. NOT the FY 2026-27 request, which is co-capreq-capitol-grounds-renovation, and NOT a lifetime cost — the document prints no prior-year appropriations, so earlier phases are not in this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request through later years”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What the state was asked to build
What this counts The figure-setting document's own "Total Not Recommended" — what Colorado was asked to build in FY 2026-27 and the Capital Development Committee did not recommend funding.
Quoted from the document, and asserted against the sum of its own 40 rows every run. Never added to the enacted capital schedule: a refused request and an appropriation are different bases.
How this figure was reached "Total Not Recommended" as printed in JBC staff figure setting — the sum the document itself states for the 40 FY 2026-27 capital requests the Capital Development Committee did not recommend. A REQUEST REFUSED IS NOT A SPEND AND NOT AN APPROPRIATION, and it is never added to the enacted capital schedule: two documents, two bases.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The 53 FY 2026-27 capital requests added together, recommended and not recommended alike.
DERIVED. The document prints a total per table and none for all three, so this figure is ours and is re-checked against the three printed totals on every run.
How this figure was reached The three FY 2026-27 request tables added: state-funded recommended $168,258,221, cash-funded recommended $67,376,656, and not recommended $761,107,353. DERIVED — the document prints a total for each table and none for all three — and re-checked against those three printed totals on every run.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital request”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Every capital project a state agency or institution asked for in the FY 2026-27 cycle, as the Joint Budget Committee's figure-setting document prints it. A REQUEST is not an appropriation and not a spend: some of these were recommended by the Capital Development Committee, most were not, and being recommended is still not the same as being enacted. What the state actually appropriated is the Long Bill, and the two are never added together.
From the three request tables in JBC staff figure setting, 25 February 2026. Each table reconciles on its own before any row is published: every row's General Fund/CCF plus cash equals its printed total, and every column sums to the total the document prints for that table. The section says which way the Capital Development Committee went; the basis is the same either way. NEVER added to the Long Bill, which is what the state actually appropriated — the two answer different questions, and a recommendation is not an enactment either.
Every one of the 53 (53 published, 0 not) Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Staff Figure Setting — Capital Construction, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The "Projects Not Recommended by the CDC" table, read from the publisher's PDF. A REQUEST is a third basis: not an appropriation and not a spend, so these figures are never added to the Long Bill and never described as money the state committed. Reconciled twice before anything is emitted — every row's General Fund/CCF plus Cash equals its printed Total Funds, and all five columns sum to the totals the document prints ($761,107,353 of total funds across 40 rows). Its December 2025 sibling, the staff BRIEFING, heads the same table "Projects Not Recommended for Funding by OSPB" and totals $790,297,156 — a different recommending body, a different column set and $29,189,803 more — so the heading is asserted before a figure is read. Two traps: the filename is case-sensitive and does NOT follow its sibling (the briefing is fy2026-27_capbrf.pdf, this is FY2026-27_CAPfig.pdf, and five lowercase guesses 404); and the document misdates itself, cover February 25 2026 against a page footer reading 25-Feb-2025, so the cover is what identifies it.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record, row by row. Nothing here was worked out for you.
How this budget balanced
What this counts The change in Health Care Policy & Financing's appropriation attributed to the medical forecast — caseload and expenditure under current law and policy — as the JBC narrative's own change table prints it. Total funds.
One line of a nine-line table that is reconciled before any figure from it is published: the nine lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933 change, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. A CHANGE within one department, never a statewide figure and never added to the Long Bill total.
How this figure was reached "Medical forecast" as printed in Health Care Policy and Financing's change table in the JBC Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, April 7, 2026. A CHANGE inside one department against its adjusted FY 2025-26 appropriation, not a statewide figure: the table's nine change lines sum to the $1,290,852,933 the document prints, and $20,526,664,783 is the department's own FY 2026-27 total. Never added to the Long Bill's statewide appropriation.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “appropriation change”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The change in Health Care Policy & Financing's appropriation attributed to provider rates, total funds. Negative — rates were reduced.
Same reconciled nine-line table. This is the WHOLE provider-rate line; the 2.0 percent across-the-board reduction the narrative describes separately is $222,022,950 of it, and the two are different quantities. index.html previously published -$270M here, which is neither.
How this figure was reached "Provider rates" as printed in Health Care Policy and Financing's change table in the JBC Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, April 7, 2026. A CHANGE inside one department against its adjusted FY 2025-26 appropriation, not a statewide figure: the table's nine change lines sum to the $1,290,852,933 the document prints, and $20,526,664,783 is the department's own FY 2026-27 total. Never added to the Long Bill's statewide appropriation.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “appropriation change”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The change in Health Care Policy & Financing's appropriation from carrying prior-year supplemental actions forward, total funds.
Same reconciled nine-line table.
How this figure was reached "Continuation of supplemental actions" as printed in Health Care Policy and Financing's change table in the JBC Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, April 7, 2026. A CHANGE inside one department against its adjusted FY 2025-26 appropriation, not a statewide figure: the table's nine change lines sum to the $1,290,852,933 the document prints, and $20,526,664,783 is the department's own FY 2026-27 total. Never added to the Long Bill's statewide appropriation.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “appropriation change”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts What the state projects it will actually hold in reserve at the end of the fiscal year — the balance left in the General Fund plus the reserve held at PERA under S.B. 25-310 — as Table 3 of the JBC narrative prints it.
A PROJECTION on the March 2026 OSPB forecast, not an audited balance. Table 3 line 5. Its two components are Table 3 lines 3 and 4, and the table's own arithmetic is checked in both directions before any figure from it is published.
How this figure was reached Table 3 of the JBC Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, April 7, 2026, printed to the nearest $100,000 as "$ in millions", line 5: the total year-end General Fund reserve PROJECTED for FY 2026-27 on the March 2026 OSPB forecast — $1,674,100,000 left in the General Fund plus $500,000,000 held at PERA under S.B. 25-310. A projection, not an audited balance. Table 3's own arithmetic is checked in both directions before this is published: line 1 less line 2 is line 3, line 3 plus line 4 is line 5, and line 5 less line 7 is line 8.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “forecast projection”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The dollar amount the state is required to hold in reserve, as Table 3 of the JBC narrative prints it — the quantity the projected balance is measured against.
QUOTED, NEVER RECOMPUTED. The obvious derivation — the required percent times the "Total Appropriations Subject to Reserve" line in the same document — does not hold in any of the three years the table prints, and is $41.3 million out for FY 2026-27. The base is nonetheless right: H.B. 26-1363's own fiscal impact says the two-point cut reduces the FY 2026-27 requirement by $340.7 million, and two points of that line is $340.72 million, which the ingest re-measures every run. A recomputed requirement would be ours, would differ from the state's, and would look entirely reasonable.
How this figure was reached Table 3 of the JBC Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, April 7, 2026, printed to the nearest $100,000 as "$ in millions", line 7: the dollar amount the state must hold in reserve in FY 2026-27 under the 13 percent requirement House Bill 26-1363 sets. QUOTED, NEVER RECOMPUTED — 13 percent of the $17,036,100,000 of FY 2026-27 appropriations subject to reserve is $41.3 million MORE than the amount this table prints, and the document never says why. The base is confirmed a different way and re-measured every run: H.B. 26-1363's own fiscal impact puts the two-point reduction at $340,700,000 for FY 2026-27, and two points of that line is $340,722,000.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “statutory requirement”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts How far the projected year-end General Fund reserve sits above (positive) or below (negative) the reserve the state is required to hold, as Table 3 prints it.
Measured against the requirement H.B. 26-1363 sets, which is 13.0 percent for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27. A DIFFERENT QUANTITY from co-gf-reserve-below-prior-requirement, which measures the same projection against the 15.0 percent requirement in force before that bill. The two are $339.5 million apart for FY 2026-27 and each names its requirement.
How this figure was reached Table 3 of the JBC Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, April 7, 2026, printed to the nearest $100,000 as "$ in millions", line 8: the projected FY 2026-27 year-end reserve stands $600,000 ABOVE the 13 percent requirement in force. NAME THE REQUIREMENT: against the 15 percent requirement that stood before House Bill 26-1363, the same projection is BELOW it, and for FY 2026-27 that is the separately published $340,100,000. One projection, two requirements, two opposite-sounding true sentences.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “forecast projection”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The share of General Fund appropriations the state must hold in reserve, as H.B. 26-1363 sets it for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27.
Temporarily reduced from 15.0 percent. The budget package balances to this revised requirement, which is the mechanism by which it balances — the narrative states no headline shortfall, and the "$1.2B budget gap closed" this page used to publish is in none of the three FY 2026-27 JBC documents.
How this figure was reached The statutory General Fund reserve requirement for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27, reduced from 15 percent by House Bill 26-1363 (Temporarily Reduce General Fund Reserve). The JBC narrative, April 7, 2026, states that the budget package balances to this revised requirement. That is how this budget balances; the narrative names no headline shortfall.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “statutory requirement”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts How far the projected FY 2026-27 year-end General Fund reserve falls below the 15.0 percent requirement in force before H.B. 26-1363 reduced it.
Stated by the narrative against the March 2026 OSPB forecast. The same sentence is printed for FY 2025-26 with a different figure ($234.7 million), so the fiscal year is anchored in the parse. Against the PROPOSED 13.0 percent requirement the same projection is $0.6 million ABOVE — the two are different comparisons and the requirement is named on both.
How this figure was reached The projected FY 2026-27 year-end General Fund reserve is $340,100,000 below the 15 percent requirement in force before House Bill 26-1363, on the March 2026 OSPB forecast, as stated in the JBC narrative, April 7, 2026. Against the PROPOSED 13 percent requirement the same projection is $0.6 million ABOVE — a different comparison, and the requirement is named on both. The narrative prints this sentence for FY 2025-26 as well, with a different figure, so the year is anchored in the parse rather than taken from the first match.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “forecast projection”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The estimated reduction in the state's TABOR refund obligation for FY 2026-27 from the seven budget-package bills that affect it.
Stated as an estimate by the narrative. A refund obligation is not an appropriation and is never added to one.
How this figure was reached Seven budget-package bills reduce the state's FY 2026-27 TABOR refund obligation by an estimated $110,700,000, as stated in the JBC narrative, April 7, 2026. A refund obligation is not an appropriation and is never added to one. THE DOCUMENT SAYS THIS TWICE AND NOT IDENTICALLY: three pages later it says SIX bills and $110.6 million. The figure published here is the one stated as an estimate in the package overview; the other is recorded and not published.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “estimate”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
TABOR: the refund and the fee revenue outside the cap
What this counts The TABOR refund the March 2026 OSPB forecast projects the state will owe for the fiscal year, before the bills in the budget package that reduce it.
A FORECAST, and it is the figure the JBC's Table 6 and Table 9 BOTH state — which is the reconciliation that makes it publishable. The surplus of a fiscal year is refunded in the FOLLOWING year, which the document says and the method note repeats. Never added to an appropriation: a refund obligation is money going out to taxpayers, not money being spent.
How this figure was reached The FY 2026-27 TABOR refund obligation on the March 2026 OSPB forecast, $711,100,000, BEFORE the budget-package bills that reduce it. Stated identically by Table 6 line 13 and Table 9 line 1 of the JBC narrative, April 7, 2026, and the two are compared before either is published. The FY 2026-27 surplus is refunded in FY 2027-28, which the document says in words. The same table's FY 2024-25 column reads $293,300,000, which is the State Controller's certified $293,303,186 already published here from the State Auditor's own schedule — two publishers, one figure. A refund obligation is money returned to taxpayers and is never added to an appropriation.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “forecast projection”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts What the JBC projects will still be refunded after the bills that reduce the obligation — Table 9's own "Projected remaining refund (paid in following year)".
QUOTED AS THE TOTAL THE TABLE PRINTS. The eight reduction lines below the forecast are NOT summed here, because the document gives three different answers for that one subtraction: its own eight lines come to -$293.4M, its printed remaining refund implies -$293.3M, and Table 6 states -$293.7M. The prose disagrees with itself too, saying six bills and $110.6 million three pages after saying seven bills and $110.7 million. None of it is large and all of it would be invisible in a rendered card, so only the two printed totals ship and the disagreement is pinned and re-measured every run.
How this figure was reached Table 9 line 10 of the JBC narrative, April 7, 2026: "Projected remaining refund (paid in following year)", $417,800,000, after the bills that reduce the FY 2026-27 obligation. THE TABLE'S OWN REDUCTION LINES ARE NOT SUMMED HERE, because the document answers that subtraction three ways — its eight listed lines come to -$293,400,000, this printed total implies -$293,300,000, and Table 6 line 14 states $-293,700,000. Both printed totals are published and the $400,000 disagreement is pinned in the parse, so a run stops if the publisher restates it.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “forecast projection”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The budget › TABOR: the refund and the fee revenue outside the cap
TABOR refund by surplus fiscal year
$521.0 million
FY 2027-28
FACT estimate transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts The amount refunded (or to be refunded) to taxpayers for each fiscal year's TABOR surplus, keyed to the fiscal year the surplus was collected. A refund obligation is not an appropriation and is never added to one.
One document per figure: LCS's refund-mechanism history for FY 1996-97 through FY 2017-18 (CALC — the table prints no total row), OSA-audited State Controller certifications for FY 2021-22 and FY 2024-25, and the LCS June 2026 forecast for FY 2025-26 onward, labeled estimate. Vintage rule: certified where certified exists; forecast labeled forecast; one series never mixes the two for one year. Years the audit says triggered a refund but whose amount no verified document states are PENDING, never filled.
How this figure was reached LCS June 2026 forecast — an ESTIMATE, published as one. Projected surplus $674.1M less the $153.1M adjustment under H.B. 26-1419.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “estimate”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Referendum C (2005) lets the state retain revenue above the old limit up to the Referendum C cap; refunds after this line answer a different excess test than refunds before it. The FY 2021-22 surplus was refunded largely as SB22-233 flat per-filer checks ($750 single / $1,500 joint), a mechanism no other year uses; year-to-year comparisons of refund SHAPE cross this line, totals do not. Where it came from Legislative Council Staff Economic & Revenue Forecast, June 2026
Open the source document ↗
FY 2025-26 revenue projected $424.9M BELOW the Referendum C cap — refund obligation $0.0, a FORECAST zero, not a certified one. FY 2026-27 surplus $483.0M and FY 2027-28 surplus $674.1M each reduced by $153.1M under H.B. 26-1419 to obligations of $329.9M and $521.0M (the module asserts both subtractions). TRAP: Table 1B prints the FY 2024-25 refund obligation as $306.1M on a line labeled "Actual", against the certified $293,303,186 — an LCS accrual is not the Controller's certification, and the two are never mixed in one series (see VINTAGE_SPLIT_FY2425). Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (35) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The budget › TABOR: the refund and the fee revenue outside the cap
TABOR-exempt enterprise revenue
$23.30 billion
FY 2022-23
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Total annual revenue of state government enterprises exempt from the TABOR limit — fee revenue outside the cap, as compiled by Legislative Council Staff from the TABOR Schedules of Computations.
LCS memo r24-905 Table 1, printed in millions to one decimal; the published figure is the memo's own per-year total, reconciled both directions against the per-enterprise matrix. The series ends at FY 2022-23, the last year the memo covers; a circulating FY 2025 figure ($28.2B) is unverified and deliberately not published. Page 9 of the memo misprints three value blocks onto wrong row labels (proved by its own Total column), so no per-enterprise figure from FY 2004-05 through FY 2008-09 is published; the year totals are unaffected.
How this figure was reached The memo's own printed FY 2022-23 total, stated in millions to one decimal and carried at that precision. Reconciled against the per-enterprise column on every run, within the rounding the memo itself discloses. Revenue of TABOR-exempt state enterprises — fee revenue outside the cap, not an appropriation, never added to one.
What this cannot be compared to The hospital provider fee became the Healthcare Affordability and Sustainability Enterprise in FY 2017-18 (SB17-267), moving roughly $3B of existing fee revenue outside the cap in one step — a reclassification, not new collections. Where it came from Legislative Council Staff State Government Enterprises (memo r24-905, 2025-01-22)
Open the source document ↗
Table 1 states enterprise revenue by enterprise by fiscal year, FY 1993-94 through FY 2022-23, in millions to one decimal, with per-year totals, per-enterprise totals and a grand total ($259,809.2M), footnoted "Totals may not sum due to rounding". FINDING (2026-08-21, established from the memo's own Total column and confirmed against a rendered image of the page): page 9 prints three value blocks against the wrong row labels — see the module header. Five per-enterprise totals fail as printed and all reconcile under one minimal reassignment; the YEAR totals are unaffected. Per-enterprise figures from the affected block are therefore not published. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (30) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What the state has borrowed
What this counts Every dollar of principal the State of Colorado still owes on its borrowing at the close of the fiscal year — notes, revenue bonds and Certificates of Participation, plus leases and subscriptions — across governmental and business-type activities, as the ACFR totals it.
The State is constitutionally barred from issuing general obligation debt except for buildings for state use, defense in time of war, or an unforeseen revenue shortfall, so none of this is backed by the taxing power: it is secured by pledged revenue streams and by the assets themselves. The figure is the Total row of the MD&A's own debt table, which cross-foots by row, foots by column, and ties exactly to Note 11's four maturity schedules.
How this figure was reached Outstanding principal at June 30, 2025 — $11,467,378,000 — the Total row of the debt table in the State of Colorado's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, Management's Discussion and Analysis, "Capital Assets and Long-Term Debt Activity". $4,899,485,000 of it is governmental activities and $6,567,893,000 business-type, chiefly the higher-education institutions. Colorado is constitutionally prohibited from issuing general obligation debt except to fund buildings for State use, to defend the State or the U.S. in time of war, or to provide for unforeseen revenue shortfalls. None of this borrowing is backed by the taxing power: it is Certificates of Participation and revenue bonds, each secured by a pledged revenue stream. The State states the year's move itself: up 3.1 percent from $11,120,600,000, which is read rather than recomputed because the document prints all three.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “audited actual”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Office of the State Controller State of Colorado Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The State's own audited annual report, and the ONLY place Colorado publishes what it owes. The budget documents appropriate and report no balance sheet, and the State Treasurer's Debt Management page — where a person would look — publishes offering statements for individual note issues, a page of prose calling Colorado "a low-debt state", and no statewide total at all. Read for Management's Discussion and Analysis, "Capital Assets and Long-Term Debt Activity" (p. 37), and Note 11, "Notes, Bonds, and Certificates of Participation Payable" (pp. 136-139), through ingest module. THE MD&A DEBT TABLE IS PRINTED TWICE — Fiscal Year 2025 and, ten lines below, Fiscal Year 2024 — with identical row labels and nothing but a bare year heading between them; reading the second publishes last year's balance sheet and passes every cross-foot, every column total and every schedule tie, because the prior-year table is internally consistent too. The block is cut out by its year heading before a row pattern is applied, and the parse is tied to the sentence that names BOTH years ("increased by 3.1 percent from the prior year of $11,120.6 million to $11,467.4 million"), which is the only reader that can tell them apart. Reconciled four ways before any figure ships: the MD&A table cross-foots by row and foots by column; Note 11's FOUR maturity schedules sum exactly to the MD&A's notes/bonds/COPs column; the MD&A's own prose ($4,495.3M governmental, $6,329.3M enterprise) agrees with its table to printed precision; and every published figure is frozen against a constant. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED: the FY 2025, FY 2024 and FY 2023 editions use three different conventions in two directories, and the newest carries the date it was re-issued for accessibility (1.30.26) rather than any fiscal year — resolve each edition from the publisher's own list. osc.colorado.gov refuses automated requests on every path, including its home page, so this was read with a browser. And text extraction drops the capital P from "Certificates of Participation" in all four schedule headers, so a search of the extracted text finds the prose and not the tables. Read 2026-09-03.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Outstanding principal on borrowed money alone — notes payable, revenue bonds and Certificates of Participation — excluding leases and subscriptions.
A NARROWER QUANTITY than total outstanding principal, and the one a reader means by "what the state has borrowed": the $642.7 million difference is leases and subscription arrangements, which GASB 87 and 96 put on the balance sheet and nobody would call debt issuance. Both are printed as totals and both are published, each named.
How this figure was reached Outstanding principal on borrowed money alone at June 30, 2025 — notes payable, revenue bonds and Certificates of Participation — from the same table in the State of Colorado's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. The $642,734,000 difference from the total is leases and subscription arrangements, which accounting standards put on the balance sheet and which nobody would call debt the state issued. Named on every occurrence, because a reader who wants "what has Colorado borrowed" means this one and a reader who wants "what does Colorado owe" means the other. Note 11's four maturity schedules sum to this figure exactly.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “audited actual”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Office of the State Controller State of Colorado Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The State's own audited annual report, and the ONLY place Colorado publishes what it owes. The budget documents appropriate and report no balance sheet, and the State Treasurer's Debt Management page — where a person would look — publishes offering statements for individual note issues, a page of prose calling Colorado "a low-debt state", and no statewide total at all. Read for Management's Discussion and Analysis, "Capital Assets and Long-Term Debt Activity" (p. 37), and Note 11, "Notes, Bonds, and Certificates of Participation Payable" (pp. 136-139), through ingest module. THE MD&A DEBT TABLE IS PRINTED TWICE — Fiscal Year 2025 and, ten lines below, Fiscal Year 2024 — with identical row labels and nothing but a bare year heading between them; reading the second publishes last year's balance sheet and passes every cross-foot, every column total and every schedule tie, because the prior-year table is internally consistent too. The block is cut out by its year heading before a row pattern is applied, and the parse is tied to the sentence that names BOTH years ("increased by 3.1 percent from the prior year of $11,120.6 million to $11,467.4 million"), which is the only reader that can tell them apart. Reconciled four ways before any figure ships: the MD&A table cross-foots by row and foots by column; Note 11's FOUR maturity schedules sum exactly to the MD&A's notes/bonds/COPs column; the MD&A's own prose ($4,495.3M governmental, $6,329.3M enterprise) agrees with its table to printed precision; and every published figure is frozen against a constant. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED: the FY 2025, FY 2024 and FY 2023 editions use three different conventions in two directories, and the newest carries the date it was re-issued for accessibility (1.30.26) rather than any fiscal year — resolve each edition from the publisher's own list. osc.colorado.gov refuses automated requests on every path, including its home page, so this was read with a browser. And text extraction drops the capital P from "Certificates of Participation" in all four schedule headers, so a search of the extracted text finds the prose and not the tables. Read 2026-09-03.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The interest the state will pay over the whole remaining life of the borrowing it already has — thirty-five years for the longest of it — if none of it is refinanced or retired early.
A LIFETIME figure and never an annual one. It is printed beside the principal in the same table and totals the same four maturity schedules.
How this figure was reached Interest still owed over the remaining life of the borrowing outstanding at June 30, 2025, from the same table in the State of Colorado's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, which schedules it over thirty-five years. A LIFETIME FIGURE AND NEVER AN ANNUAL ONE, and never added to the principal beside it: the two are what is owed and what it will cost to owe it.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “audited actual”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Office of the State Controller State of Colorado Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The State's own audited annual report, and the ONLY place Colorado publishes what it owes. The budget documents appropriate and report no balance sheet, and the State Treasurer's Debt Management page — where a person would look — publishes offering statements for individual note issues, a page of prose calling Colorado "a low-debt state", and no statewide total at all. Read for Management's Discussion and Analysis, "Capital Assets and Long-Term Debt Activity" (p. 37), and Note 11, "Notes, Bonds, and Certificates of Participation Payable" (pp. 136-139), through ingest module. THE MD&A DEBT TABLE IS PRINTED TWICE — Fiscal Year 2025 and, ten lines below, Fiscal Year 2024 — with identical row labels and nothing but a bare year heading between them; reading the second publishes last year's balance sheet and passes every cross-foot, every column total and every schedule tie, because the prior-year table is internally consistent too. The block is cut out by its year heading before a row pattern is applied, and the parse is tied to the sentence that names BOTH years ("increased by 3.1 percent from the prior year of $11,120.6 million to $11,467.4 million"), which is the only reader that can tell them apart. Reconciled four ways before any figure ships: the MD&A table cross-foots by row and foots by column; Note 11's FOUR maturity schedules sum exactly to the MD&A's notes/bonds/COPs column; the MD&A's own prose ($4,495.3M governmental, $6,329.3M enterprise) agrees with its table to printed precision; and every published figure is frozen against a constant. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED: the FY 2025, FY 2024 and FY 2023 editions use three different conventions in two directories, and the newest carries the date it was re-issued for accessibility (1.30.26) rather than any fiscal year — resolve each edition from the publisher's own list. osc.colorado.gov refuses automated requests on every path, including its home page, so this was read with a browser. And text extraction drops the capital P from "Certificates of Participation" in all four schedule headers, so a search of the extracted text finds the prose and not the tables. Read 2026-09-03.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The interest the state actually recorded as a cost during the fiscal year, across governmental and business-type activities, as Note 11 states it.
INTEREST, NOT DEBT SERVICE — it excludes the principal repaid in the same year, so it is not what the state paid out. It is published because it is a real annual figure the document states and totals; the annual debt-service figure it might be mistaken for is refused on this locale and says why.
How this figure was reached Interest the state recorded as a cost during the fiscal year — $199,500,000 governmental and $270,600,000 business-type — as Note 11 of the State of Colorado's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 states it. The two parts are checked against the total the same sentence prints. INTEREST, NOT DEBT SERVICE: it excludes principal repaid in the year, so it is less than the state paid out, and the annual debt-service figure it could be mistaken for is refused below.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “audited actual”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Office of the State Controller State of Colorado Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The State's own audited annual report, and the ONLY place Colorado publishes what it owes. The budget documents appropriate and report no balance sheet, and the State Treasurer's Debt Management page — where a person would look — publishes offering statements for individual note issues, a page of prose calling Colorado "a low-debt state", and no statewide total at all. Read for Management's Discussion and Analysis, "Capital Assets and Long-Term Debt Activity" (p. 37), and Note 11, "Notes, Bonds, and Certificates of Participation Payable" (pp. 136-139), through ingest module. THE MD&A DEBT TABLE IS PRINTED TWICE — Fiscal Year 2025 and, ten lines below, Fiscal Year 2024 — with identical row labels and nothing but a bare year heading between them; reading the second publishes last year's balance sheet and passes every cross-foot, every column total and every schedule tie, because the prior-year table is internally consistent too. The block is cut out by its year heading before a row pattern is applied, and the parse is tied to the sentence that names BOTH years ("increased by 3.1 percent from the prior year of $11,120.6 million to $11,467.4 million"), which is the only reader that can tell them apart. Reconciled four ways before any figure ships: the MD&A table cross-foots by row and foots by column; Note 11's FOUR maturity schedules sum exactly to the MD&A's notes/bonds/COPs column; the MD&A's own prose ($4,495.3M governmental, $6,329.3M enterprise) agrees with its table to printed precision; and every published figure is frozen against a constant. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED: the FY 2025, FY 2024 and FY 2023 editions use three different conventions in two directories, and the newest carries the date it was re-issued for accessibility (1.30.26) rather than any fiscal year — resolve each edition from the publisher's own list. osc.colorado.gov refuses automated requests on every path, including its home page, so this was read with a browser. And text extraction drops the capital P from "Certificates of Participation" in all four schedule headers, so a search of the extracted text finds the prose and not the tables. Read 2026-09-03.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Principal plus interest coming due across all state borrowing in the next fiscal year.
NOT PUBLISHED, and the reason is structural rather than an oversight. The ACFR schedules next year's principal and interest in FOUR separate tables — governmental and business-type, each split between direct and non-direct placements — and never adds their rows together. Summing them would be our figure carrying the state's name. The one annual debt-service figure the document does state covers business-type revenue bonds only ($419.6 million against $3,843.5 million of available net revenue) and is a different quantity, so it is not published under this name either.
How this figure was reached Colorado publishes no statewide annual debt-service figure. The State of Colorado's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 schedules next year's principal and interest in FOUR separate tables in Note 11 — governmental and business-type activities, each split between direct and non-direct placements — and never adds their rows together. Adding them here would put our arithmetic under the state's name. The one annual debt-service figure the document does state is a different quantity, business-type revenue bonds only: $419,600,000 of requirement against $3,843,500,000 of available net revenue after operating expenses.
Where it came from Colorado Office of the State Controller State of Colorado Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The State's own audited annual report, and the ONLY place Colorado publishes what it owes. The budget documents appropriate and report no balance sheet, and the State Treasurer's Debt Management page — where a person would look — publishes offering statements for individual note issues, a page of prose calling Colorado "a low-debt state", and no statewide total at all. Read for Management's Discussion and Analysis, "Capital Assets and Long-Term Debt Activity" (p. 37), and Note 11, "Notes, Bonds, and Certificates of Participation Payable" (pp. 136-139), through ingest module. THE MD&A DEBT TABLE IS PRINTED TWICE — Fiscal Year 2025 and, ten lines below, Fiscal Year 2024 — with identical row labels and nothing but a bare year heading between them; reading the second publishes last year's balance sheet and passes every cross-foot, every column total and every schedule tie, because the prior-year table is internally consistent too. The block is cut out by its year heading before a row pattern is applied, and the parse is tied to the sentence that names BOTH years ("increased by 3.1 percent from the prior year of $11,120.6 million to $11,467.4 million"), which is the only reader that can tell them apart. Reconciled four ways before any figure ships: the MD&A table cross-foots by row and foots by column; Note 11's FOUR maturity schedules sum exactly to the MD&A's notes/bonds/COPs column; the MD&A's own prose ($4,495.3M governmental, $6,329.3M enterprise) agrees with its table to printed precision; and every published figure is frozen against a constant. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED: the FY 2025, FY 2024 and FY 2023 editions use three different conventions in two directories, and the newest carries the date it was re-issued for accessibility (1.30.26) rather than any fiscal year — resolve each edition from the publisher's own list. osc.colorado.gov refuses automated requests on every path, including its home page, so this was read with a browser. And text extraction drops the capital P from "Certificates of Participation" in all four schedule headers, so a search of the extracted text finds the prose and not the tables. Read 2026-09-03.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Transport projects, one at a time
What this counts The TOTAL COST of one CDOT project, as CDOT states it in its own announcement of that project.
A total project cost is a different quantity from an appropriation, from a capital request and from a construction contract — the same project routinely carries all four at different figures, and CDOT’s I-25 South Gap release names a $350 million construction contract inside a project the ledger publishes at $419M. Never added to any of the others, and never summed across projects.
How this figure was reached Central 70 — reconstruction of 10 miles of I-70 through Denver. CDOT states this as "$1.2 billion project" in its own announcement, and that sentence is re-checked against the live page on every run. A TOTAL PROJECT COST: not an appropriation, not a capital request, and not the construction contract inside it — the same project can carry all four at different figures.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “total project cost”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Department of Transportation CDOT project announcements (codot.gov)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
CDOT’s own releases, read for the TOTAL PROJECT COST of individual transportation projects. Transportation capital does not run through the Long Bill’s capital schedule, so this is its own basis — never added to an appropriation, never added to a capital request, and never summed across projects, because no publisher sums them. THE FIGURE IS ASSERTED AGAINST THE PAGE ON EVERY RUN rather than transcribed: the publisher’s own sentence must still be present or the run stops. That guard exists because the defect it prevents is already in this ledger — of the nine CDOT rows examined on 2026-08-18, only these two state the figure the page publishes, and three state a DIFFERENT one (I-25 South Gap’s release says $350 million against a published $419M; the North I-25 Johnstown–Fort Collins release says a $248 million contract against $302M; the West Vail Pass page says $164.2 million for phase one and $700 million for the corridor concept against a published ≈$200M). codot.gov returns a real 26-byte 404 for an invented path, so a 200 from it means what it says — measured, and not true of every publisher this pipeline reads.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The TOTAL COST of one CDOT project, as CDOT states it in its own announcement of that project.
A total project cost is a different quantity from an appropriation, from a capital request and from a construction contract — the same project routinely carries all four at different figures, and CDOT’s I-25 South Gap release names a $350 million construction contract inside a project the ledger publishes at $419M. Never added to any of the others, and never summed across projects.
How this figure was reached US 550/160 Connection South — design-build project. CDOT states this as "$98.6 million US 550/160 Connection South Design-Build Project" in its own announcement, and that sentence is re-checked against the live page on every run. A TOTAL PROJECT COST: not an appropriation, not a capital request, and not the construction contract inside it — the same project can carry all four at different figures.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “total project cost”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Department of Transportation CDOT project announcements (codot.gov)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
CDOT’s own releases, read for the TOTAL PROJECT COST of individual transportation projects. Transportation capital does not run through the Long Bill’s capital schedule, so this is its own basis — never added to an appropriation, never added to a capital request, and never summed across projects, because no publisher sums them. THE FIGURE IS ASSERTED AGAINST THE PAGE ON EVERY RUN rather than transcribed: the publisher’s own sentence must still be present or the run stops. That guard exists because the defect it prevents is already in this ledger — of the nine CDOT rows examined on 2026-08-18, only these two state the figure the page publishes, and three state a DIFFERENT one (I-25 South Gap’s release says $350 million against a published $419M; the North I-25 Johnstown–Fort Collins release says a $248 million contract against $302M; the West Vail Pass page says $164.2 million for phase one and $700 million for the corridor concept against a published ≈$200M). codot.gov returns a real 26-byte 404 for an invented path, so a 200 from it means what it says — measured, and not true of every publisher this pipeline reads.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Vendor payments, month by month
The budget › Vendor payments, month by month
CDOT payments cleared, by month
$240.8 million
2026-08
FACT payments cleared
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Total of every payee-level payment CDOT cleared in the month, as held in the archived snapshot. Payments made, not appropriations authorized, and not per project.
Only months at or above 75% of the median month's density are published; the rest are PENDING(insufficient_coverage).
How this figure was reached Read from our archived copy of the publisher's file, retrieved 2026-09-26 and reconciled against the publisher's own count, sum and date range in integer cents. 15,107 payment records. Payments CLEARED in the month — not an appropriation, and not attributable to a project: the feed's only segment field is an appropriation line, of which one value holds about two thirds of all money. Negative rows (refunds, reversals, retainage releases) are retained, not filtered. The feed is a ROLLING WINDOW whose early months are far below steady-state density — 2025-09 at 16%, 2025-10 at 25%, 2025-11 at 61% of the median month — so those months are PENDING rather than plotted. The window's own total is never published: summing across a window with a hole in it is not CDOT's spending for the period.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “payments cleared”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Department of Transportation (via data.colorado.gov) CDOT Expenses (n5ku-eixc), weekly archived snapshots
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Payee-level expenditure records — the ONLY vendor-level expenditure feed the State serves for any department. A ROLLING WINDOW with no archive on the portal, so the weekly CDOT archive capture captures it weekly and every figure here is read from a captured snapshot rather than from the live feed. Each snapshot is reconciled against the publisher's own count, sum and date range in integer cents before it is written. The window's TOTAL is never published: the feed's early months are 3-62% of steady-state density and one month is missing entirely, so a sum across it is not CDOT's spending for the period.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (12) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The budget › Vendor payments, month by month
CDOT payment transactions, by month
15,107
2026-08
FACT payments cleared
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Number of payee-level payment records CDOT cleared in the month. One record per payment: one contract arrives as many progress payments.
Same density rule as the money figure, so the two series always cover the same months.
How this figure was reached Read from our archived copy of the publisher's file, retrieved 2026-09-26 and reconciled against the publisher's own count, sum and date range in integer cents. One record per payment, so this counts transactions rather than contracts.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “payments cleared”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Department of Transportation (via data.colorado.gov) CDOT Expenses (n5ku-eixc), weekly archived snapshots
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Payee-level expenditure records — the ONLY vendor-level expenditure feed the State serves for any department. A ROLLING WINDOW with no archive on the portal, so the weekly CDOT archive capture captures it weekly and every figure here is read from a captured snapshot rather than from the live feed. Each snapshot is reconciled against the publisher's own count, sum and date range in integer cents before it is written. The window's TOTAL is never published: the feed's early months are 3-62% of steady-state density and one month is missing entirely, so a sum across it is not CDOT's spending for the period.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (12) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Colorado’s mix against every state’s
What this counts Elementary & Secondary Education as a percent of Colorado's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, Colorado's own row: 17% of Colorado's total estimated fiscal 2025 spending.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Elementary & Secondary Education as a percent of the average state's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, ALL STATES row, cross-checked against the executive summary's own national callout: 18.2%.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Higher Education as a percent of Colorado's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, Colorado's own row: 15.9% of Colorado's total estimated fiscal 2025 spending.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Higher Education as a percent of the average state's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, ALL STATES row, cross-checked against the executive summary's own national callout: 8.8%.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Medicaid as a percent of Colorado's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, Colorado's own row: 34% of Colorado's total estimated fiscal 2025 spending.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Medicaid as a percent of the average state's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, ALL STATES row, cross-checked against the executive summary's own national callout: 30.7%.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Corrections as a percent of Colorado's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, Colorado's own row: 2.7% of Colorado's total estimated fiscal 2025 spending.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Corrections as a percent of the average state's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, ALL STATES row, cross-checked against the executive summary's own national callout: 2.5%.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Transportation as a percent of Colorado's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, Colorado's own row: 4.5% of Colorado's total estimated fiscal 2025 spending.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Transportation as a percent of the average state's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, ALL STATES row, cross-checked against the executive summary's own national callout: 7.8%.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts All Other as a percent of Colorado's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, Colorado's own row: 26% of Colorado's total estimated fiscal 2025 spending.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts All Other as a percent of the average state's total expenditures, on NASBO's own self-reported basis. NOT the same quantity as the $100 receipt, which is Colorado's own enacted appropriation for a different fiscal year — never combine the two on one chart.
NASBO 2025 State Expenditure Report, Table 4, cross-checked against the report's own executive-summary restatement of the national row before anything here is published.
How this figure was reached NASBO Table 4, ALL STATES row, cross-checked against the executive summary's own national callout: 31.9%.
Where it came from National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) 2025 State Expenditure Report: Fiscal Years 2023-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Published Jan 12, 2026. Self-reported by all 50 states on NASBO's own survey and definitions — "the data are self-reported by the states," the report's own caution. Table 4 states each state's spending mix across six functions as a percent of that state's own total expenditures, fiscal 2025 (estimated); the executive summary restates the ALL STATES row as a national callout, and the two are asserted to agree before anything here is published. probe-source clean (honest 403 on an invented route) 2026-08-22. A DIFFERENT BASIS from the $100 receipt (expenditures vs. appropriations, fiscal 2025 vs. FY 2026-27) — never combine the two on one chart.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Schools
Pupils, funding and graduation.
Pupils
What this counts Students enrolled in Colorado public PK-12 schools on the annual October count date.
CDE Student October collection; drives school funding.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Education 2025-26 State Level PK-12 Membership Workbook
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Official October-count pupil membership; statewide trend 1982-83 to 2025-26. CDE site migrated to ed.cde.state.co.us (Finalsite CMS) — old cde.state.co.us URLs redirect.
Checked against this exact file: 26278179fc0b0ed3…, 53,305 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (44) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts How many fewer students Colorado public PK-12 schools counted in the latest October count than in the highest October count the CDE series publishes. The peak count less the latest count; 0 when the latest count is the peak.
Derived from co-k12-membership, the CDE Student October collection, on every run. Both operands are that series' own FACT rows and are named in the method note.
How this figure was reached 913,223 (2019-20, the highest October count in the series) − 870,793 (2025-26, the latest) = 42,430 fewer students. Both operands are CDE's own published counts.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Education 2025-26 State Level PK-12 Membership Workbook
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Official October-count pupil membership; statewide trend 1982-83 to 2025-26. CDE site migrated to ed.cde.state.co.us (Finalsite CMS) — old cde.state.co.us URLs redirect.
Checked against this exact file: 26278179fc0b0ed3…, 53,305 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Results
What this counts Share of an anticipated-year-of-graduation (AYG) cohort graduating within 4 years.
CDE graduation/completion statistics, anticipated year of graduation basis.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Education 2024-2025 Graduation-Completion State Trends Workbook
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
4/5/6/7-year graduation & completion rate trends by anticipated year of graduation (AYG), all-students and subgroups.
Checked against this exact file: 51c8d83c625305e1…, 53,564 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (14) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts National average public high school 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.
NCES Digest 219.46; 2019-20 and 2020-21 carry COVID-era comparability caveats.
Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics Digest of Education Statistics table 219.46 (ACGR by state, 2011-12 to 2021-22)
Open the source document ↗
Federal 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, US + every state, same basis as CDE's rate. Colorado 2021-22 = 82.3 in this table, agreeing exactly with CDE's AYG 2022 figure — the source handoff is disclosed on the chart. NCES notes 2019-20/2020-21 rates carry COVID-era comparability caveats.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in Colorado public elementary and secondary schools, in unadjusted dollars of the school year stated.
NCES Digest 236.65, unadjusted-dollar block. Not comparable with co-k12-per-pupil-funding, which is the Total Program formula amount on a different denominator.
How this figure was reached Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment, school year 2020-21, in unadjusted dollars of that school year, as published by NCES — no denominator is chosen here. Read from the unadjusted block of Digest table 236.65, which prints every year in both. NOT the Total Program per-pupil figure: that is a state formula amount over the CDE October count and is about 37% lower in the same year.
Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics Digest of Education Statistics table 236.65 (current expenditures per pupil by state, 1969-70 to 2020-21)
Open the source document ↗
Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment, US + every state on ONE basis — the only same-basis national comparator for school spending. This is NOT the Total Program per-pupil figure published elsewhere on this site: it counts federal, state and local current spending against NCES fall enrollment, where Total Program is a state formula amount against the CDE October count. The two differ by about 37% in the same year (FY 2019-20: $8,489 Total Program against $11,647 here), so they are never drawn on one axis. The table prints every year twice, in unadjusted and in constant 2022-23 dollars, and both are ingested so neither can be quietly preferred. d24 does not republish the table, so the series ends at 2020-21.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts National average current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, in unadjusted dollars of the school year stated.
NCES Digest 236.65, unadjusted-dollar block — the same table and basis as the Colorado series, which is what makes the comparison valid.
How this figure was reached Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment, school year 2020-21, in unadjusted dollars of that school year, as published by NCES — no denominator is chosen here. Read from the unadjusted block of Digest table 236.65, which prints every year in both. NOT the Total Program per-pupil figure: that is a state formula amount over the CDE October count and is about 37% lower in the same year.
Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics Digest of Education Statistics table 236.65 (current expenditures per pupil by state, 1969-70 to 2020-21)
Open the source document ↗
Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment, US + every state on ONE basis — the only same-basis national comparator for school spending. This is NOT the Total Program per-pupil figure published elsewhere on this site: it counts federal, state and local current spending against NCES fall enrollment, where Total Program is a state formula amount against the CDE October count. The two differ by about 37% in the same year (FY 2019-20: $8,489 Total Program against $11,647 here), so they are never drawn on one axis. The table prints every year twice, in unadjusted and in constant 2022-23 dollars, and both are ingested so neither can be quietly preferred. d24 does not republish the table, so the series ends at 2020-21.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in Colorado, in constant 2022-23 dollars.
NCES Digest 236.65, constant-dollar block. Published alongside the unadjusted series so the inflation share of the rise is stated rather than left in it.
How this figure was reached Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment, school year 2020-21, in constant 2022-23 dollars, as published by NCES — no denominator is chosen here. Read from the constant-dollar block of Digest table 236.65, which prints every year in both. NOT the Total Program per-pupil figure: that is a state formula amount over the CDE October count and is about 37% lower in the same year.
Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics Digest of Education Statistics table 236.65 (current expenditures per pupil by state, 1969-70 to 2020-21)
Open the source document ↗
Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment, US + every state on ONE basis — the only same-basis national comparator for school spending. This is NOT the Total Program per-pupil figure published elsewhere on this site: it counts federal, state and local current spending against NCES fall enrollment, where Total Program is a state formula amount against the CDE October count. The two differ by about 37% in the same year (FY 2019-20: $8,489 Total Program against $11,647 here), so they are never drawn on one axis. The table prints every year twice, in unadjusted and in constant 2022-23 dollars, and both are ingested so neither can be quietly preferred. d24 does not republish the table, so the series ends at 2020-21.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts National average current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment, in constant 2022-23 dollars.
NCES Digest 236.65, constant-dollar block.
How this figure was reached Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment, school year 2020-21, in constant 2022-23 dollars, as published by NCES — no denominator is chosen here. Read from the constant-dollar block of Digest table 236.65, which prints every year in both. NOT the Total Program per-pupil figure: that is a state formula amount over the CDE October count and is about 37% lower in the same year.
Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics Digest of Education Statistics table 236.65 (current expenditures per pupil by state, 1969-70 to 2020-21)
Open the source document ↗
Current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment, US + every state on ONE basis — the only same-basis national comparator for school spending. This is NOT the Total Program per-pupil figure published elsewhere on this site: it counts federal, state and local current spending against NCES fall enrollment, where Total Program is a state formula amount against the CDE October count. The two differ by about 37% in the same year (FY 2019-20: $8,489 Total Program against $11,647 here), so they are never drawn on one axis. The table prints every year twice, in unadjusted and in constant 2022-23 dollars, and both are ingested so neither can be quietly preferred. d24 does not republish the table, so the series ends at 2020-21.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The amount of the FY 2026-27 K-12 funding increase the narrative estimates will come from the Kids Matter Account within the State Education Fund.
The narrative states this as an ESTIMATE in its own footnote, and it is published as one.
How this figure was reached The JBC narrative, April 7, 2026, footnotes that an estimated $213,300,000 of the FY 2026-27 K-12 increase will come from the Kids Matter Account within the State Education Fund. Published as the ESTIMATE the document calls it.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “estimate”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, FY 2026-27
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The JBC's own account of the FY 2026-27 budget package, read from the publisher's PDF. READ BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS TESTED AND FAILED: index.html published seven FACT-tagged figures under a note saying they came from "JBC narrative", and five of them are not in this document in any wording — including the headline, "Budget gap closed $1.2B". The narrative never names a headline shortfall; the package balances to a reserve requirement H.B. 26-1363 cuts from 15.0% to 13.0%. Only the $340.1M reserve figure and the $213.3M Kids Matter Account survived, both exact. THE FILENAME CANNOT BE GUESSED: six plausible names for this document all come back not-found, and 26LBNarrativeA.pdf is reachable only by following the publication list's own link, with no B, C or D edition. Health Care Policy & Financing's change table is reconciled twice before any figure from it is published — its nine change lines must sum to the printed $1,290,852,933, and the adjusted prior-year appropriation plus that change must equal the printed FY 2026-27 total. Three traps, each of which produced a clean-looking wrong answer first: the table heading "Changes from FY 2025-26 Appropriation" heads all NINETEEN department tables, so the section is identified by which candidate RECONCILES rather than by position; text extraction prepends a form feed to a department heading that opens a page, so an anchored heading pattern silently misses it; and the first data row prints currency symbols while the rest do not, so a numeric group without $ drops the LARGEST row ($1.86B) and returns a tidy 8-row table. The reserve sentence is printed in the same shape for two fiscal years ($234.7M for FY 2025-26, $340.1M for FY 2026-27), so the year is anchored.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Share of tested students meeting or exceeding expectations on the CMAS English language arts assessment, grades 3-8, English-language administration — the top two of CMAS's five performance levels.
CDE state summary achievement files publish per-grade results only; the grades-3-8 figure is a valid-score-weighted mean (CALC) and every observation carries its participation floor. CSLA (Spanish language arts, grades 3-4) is a different test and is excluded. No 2020 administration; 2021 was reduced by HB21-1161 and is excluded.
How this figure was reached Valid-score-weighted mean over grades 3-8 of the per-grade percent met or exceeded in CDE's 2026 state summary ("2026CMASMathELACSLAStateSummaryAchievementResults.xlsx"): grade 3 40.8% of 54,154, grade 4 47% of 56,808, grade 5 49.9% of 55,942, grade 6 41.6% of 54,941, grade 7 46.6% of 52,766, grade 8 42.2% of 49,977; 324,588 valid scores in all. No CDE file prints this aggregate — the per-grade figures are the publisher's, the weighting is ours. Participation by grade ran 80.4%-93.7%; the participation figure on this row is the floor. English-language administration only; CSLA (Spanish language arts) is a different test and is excluded.
What this cannot be compared to CMAS canceled in spring 2020; the 2021 administration was reduced by HB21-1161 and is excluded entirely. Gap years render as gaps, never interpolated. Where it came from Colorado Department of Education CMAS Data and Results — state summary achievement files, 2015-2026
Open the source document ↗
One state summary file per administration year, archive 2015-2026 with no 2020 file (COVID cancellation) and a reduced 2021 administration excluded here by declared reason. Formats drift across five eras (two xlsx layouts, three PDF layouts) and are declared per year in the ingest module CMAS_FILES. Files from 2016 on reprint prior-year percentages, which is the cross-file reconciliation. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Share of tested students meeting or exceeding expectations on the CMAS mathematics assessment, grades 3-8 — the top two of CMAS's five performance levels.
CDE state summary achievement files publish per-grade results only; the grades-3-8 figure is a valid-score-weighted mean (CALC) and every observation carries its participation floor. In 2015-2018 a substantial share of grade 8 students took end-of-course or advanced mathematics tests and are outside the grade 8 row. No 2020 administration; 2021 was reduced by HB21-1161 and is excluded.
How this figure was reached Valid-score-weighted mean over grades 3-8 of the per-grade percent met or exceeded in CDE's 2026 state summary ("2026CMASMathELACSLAStateSummaryAchievementResults.xlsx"): grade 3 41.5% of 55,928, grade 4 39% of 58,268, grade 5 39.3% of 55,955, grade 6 32.7% of 55,081, grade 7 32.9% of 52,864, grade 8 37.8% of 50,110; 328,206 valid scores in all. No CDE file prints this aggregate — the per-grade figures are the publisher's, the weighting is ours. Participation by grade ran 80.5%-93.9%; the participation figure on this row is the floor.
What this cannot be compared to CMAS canceled in spring 2020; the 2021 administration was reduced by HB21-1161 and is excluded entirely. Gap years render as gaps, never interpolated. Where it came from Colorado Department of Education CMAS Data and Results — state summary achievement files, 2015-2026
Open the source document ↗
One state summary file per administration year, archive 2015-2026 with no 2020 file (COVID cancellation) and a reduced 2021 administration excluded here by declared reason. Formats drift across five eras (two xlsx layouts, three PDF layouts) and are declared per year in the ingest module CMAS_FILES. Files from 2016 on reprint prior-year percentages, which is the cross-file reconciliation. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Share of Colorado public-school students who missed more than 10% of their enrolled school days in the school year, counting excused and unexcused absences alike — CDE's own definition.
CDE statewide attendance spreadsheets (2021-22 on, where the rate recomputes from the chronically-absent count over the K-12 student count at CDE's own precision) and CDE's statewide attendance summary (2016-17 through 2020-21, where the chart is the only statewide statement — read positionally, with 2018-19 pinned independently by CDE's Aug. 27, 2025 release). Not truancy: truancy is unexcused-only and a separate column in the same files.
How this figure was reached Chronic absenteeism is CDE's own measure: missing more than 10% of enrolled school days, excused and unexcused absences alike. It is NOT truancy — truancy counts unexcused absences only and is a separate measure in the same CDE files, not published here.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Education, Data Services 2024-2025 Attendance Rate, Truancy Rate and Chronic Absenteeism by State, Grade, IPST
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Sheet "State Level Data" prints three year-columns (2024-2025, 2023-2024, 2022-2023): PK-12 and K-12 student counts, attendance rate, chronic absenteeism count and rate, and three truancy measures (truancy deliberately not read — unexcused-only, a different quantity). Resolved from the landing page by link text; the /fs/ route redirects to a fragile resources.finalsite.net CDN address. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 8d8c92f0122e523b…, 30,714 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (9) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Number of Colorado public-school students who missed more than 10% of their enrolled school days in the school year, excused and unexcused absences alike.
CDE statewide attendance spreadsheets. Published from 2021-22 on only: CDE's statistics archive holds no statewide file for earlier years (LEA- and school-level files only, and summing those ourselves would be summing what the publisher does not sum), so earlier counts are simply absent, not refused and not PENDING.
How this figure was reached Chronic absenteeism is CDE's own measure: missing more than 10% of enrolled school days, excused and unexcused absences alike. It is NOT truancy — truancy counts unexcused absences only and is a separate measure in the same CDE files, not published here.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Education, Data Services 2024-2025 Attendance Rate, Truancy Rate and Chronic Absenteeism by State, Grade, IPST
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Sheet "State Level Data" prints three year-columns (2024-2025, 2023-2024, 2022-2023): PK-12 and K-12 student counts, attendance rate, chronic absenteeism count and rate, and three truancy measures (truancy deliberately not read — unexcused-only, a different quantity). Resolved from the landing page by link text; the /fs/ route redirects to a fragile resources.finalsite.net CDN address. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 8d8c92f0122e523b…, 30,714 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (4) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts U.S. Department of Education EDFacts file specification FS195 / data group 814: the unduplicated count of students absent 10 percent or more of the days they were enrolled, over the count enrolled — the same definition Colorado's own collection uses. The national figure is compiled from each state's own submission, so it is a composite of fifty state implementations rather than one survey. Three school years are published — 2020-21 through 2022-23 — and all three are pandemic-affected. That window is what the Department publishes; it is stated wherever the figure appears rather than extended.
Ed Data Express state-level percentage file (DG814PCT_SEA), one release per school year.
How this figure was reached 13,406,900 of 48,268,200 students, which recomputes to the 27.8% the file prints. U.S. Department of Education EDFacts file specification FS195 / data group 814: the unduplicated count of students absent 10 percent or more of the days they were enrolled, over the count enrolled — the same definition Colorado's own collection uses. The national figure is compiled from each state's own submission, so it is a composite of fifty state implementations rather than one survey.
Where it came from U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts / Ed Data Express Chronic Absenteeism, school year 2022-23 — state-level percentage file (SY2223_DG814PCT_SEA_082724.csv)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
File specification FS195, data group 814: students absent 10 percent or more of days enrolled — the same definition CDE uses, which is why the comparison is drawn at all. The file prints numerator, denominator and percent, and the percent RECOMPUTES from the other two to a tenth; that is the reconciliation, not a shape check. One row per state agency, 54 rows; a duplicate row would mean a subgroup breakdown arrived where the all-students total was expected and is refused. The archive URL and its member filename are both declared: the date stamps in these names follow no pattern and a constructed name would hit a neighboring year or soft-404. THREE SCHOOL YEARS EXIST, 2020-21 to 2022-23, all pandemic-affected — short, but on one unchanged file specification throughout, which is the distinction between a window that can be published with its limits stated and a basis that moved. Read 2026-08-21.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts U.S. Department of Education EDFacts file specification FS195 / data group 814: the unduplicated count of students absent 10 percent or more of the days they were enrolled, over the count enrolled — the same definition Colorado's own collection uses. The national figure is compiled from each state's own submission, so it is a composite of fifty state implementations rather than one survey. This is NOT the figure CDE publishes for Colorado. The two official sources differ by up to 2.9 points in the years they share, so this federal series exists to be compared with the federal national figure and with nothing else. The CDE series remains the state's own headline measure and runs six years longer.
The Colorado row of the same federal file that carries the national figure — one basis on both sides of the comparison.
How this figure was reached 281,429 of 838,633 students, which recomputes to the 33.6% the file prints. CDE publishes 31.1% for this year on its own collection — a +2.5 point difference between two official sources, both published, neither reconciled to the other.
Where it came from U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts / Ed Data Express Chronic Absenteeism, school year 2022-23 — state-level percentage file (SY2223_DG814PCT_SEA_082724.csv)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
File specification FS195, data group 814: students absent 10 percent or more of days enrolled — the same definition CDE uses, which is why the comparison is drawn at all. The file prints numerator, denominator and percent, and the percent RECOMPUTES from the other two to a tenth; that is the reconciliation, not a shape check. One row per state agency, 54 rows; a duplicate row would mean a subgroup breakdown arrived where the all-students total was expected and is refused. The archive URL and its member filename are both declared: the date stamps in these names follow no pattern and a constructed name would hit a neighboring year or soft-404. THREE SCHOOL YEARS EXIST, 2020-21 to 2022-23, all pandemic-affected — short, but on one unchanged file specification throughout, which is the distinction between a window that can be published with its limits stated and a basis that moved. Read 2026-08-21.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Schools › Results
State support per college student, U.S. average (SHEF, adjusted)
$12,082
FY 2024-25
FACT
Link to this measure
What this counts The 50-state average of education appropriations per FTE on the same SHEF adjusted basis as the Colorado figure beside it (the U.S. row carries COLI = EMI = 1 by construction, and never includes the District of Columbia — the publisher's own rule). A NATIONAL REFERENCE series: it exists here only as the comparison line beside Colorado's, the same standing the U.S. graduation-rate and per-pupil lines have.
Same workbook, same formula, same run as the Colorado series, so the two cannot sit on different vintages. the page generator requires this slug declared in NATIONAL_REFERENCE or the build throws.
How this figure was reached SHEF's own adjusted basis: education appropriations ÷ (COLI × EMI × HECA) ÷ net FTE enrollment, rounded to whole dollars — the publisher's cost-of-living and enrollment-mix adjustments, in constant FY 2025 dollars via SHEEO's own HECA inflation index (never CPI on top of it; the file's note 5 forbids applying both). Includes $618,730,305 of federal stimulus the publisher books inside education appropriations this year; SHEF publishes the stimulus separately, and this figure quotes SHEF's own headline basis.
What this cannot be compared to Same seam as the Colorado series: SHEF's pre-FY 2001 data come from a different source with the same definitions (the publisher's own note 4). Where it came from State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) State Higher Education Finance (SHEF), FY 2025 — Report Data workbook, state × fiscal year 1980-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The publisher's own workbook (737 KB xlsx, "Report Data" sheet, last updated April 2026 per its own About sheet), raw dollars plus SHEEO's three published adjustment factors (COLI, EMI, HECA). The adjusted per-FTE figure is SHEF's own methodology, reproduced here and reconciled every run against four figures the FY 2025 report prints (U.S. $12,082, NH low $4,557, IL high $25,468, CO $7,933). D.C. is in the data only from FY 2011 and never in the U.S. total (publisher's note 3); pre-FY 2001 data come from a different source with the same definitions (note 4 — a registered series break); education appropriations include federal stimulus in the years any was allocated, published separately and named on every affected observation. SHEEO restates history and rebases constant dollars each annual release — latest reconciling vintage wins, and the newest-year pin stops the run on a new vintage so EXPECT is updated deliberately. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (46) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average NAEP reading scale score for Colorado public school students in grade 4, as printed in NCES's 2024 state snapshot report. NAEP is the federal sample assessment, not CMAS: NAEP "Proficient" is a deliberately higher bar than CMAS "met expectations", and NAEP scale points are not percentages — the two are never drawn on one axis or under one name.
State NAEP runs every two years; the 2021 administration was postponed to 2022 (COVID-19), so no 2020 or 2021 state assessment exists and gaps render as gaps. Only the years the 2024 snapshot itself states are published (2024, 2022, and the trend baseline); the longer NAEP series is a recorded limitation, not a blank the publisher left. NAEP is a sample: NCES marks every year-to-year comparison as significant or not, and a move NAEP calls not significant is never captioned as a rise or a fall.
How this figure was reached NAEP average scale score (0-500 reading scale), public school students. The publisher's own comparisons, which govern any caption: "The average score for students in Colorado in 2024 (221) was not significantly different from their average score in 2022 (223) and in 1998 (220)." And on the Proficient bar: "The percentage of students in Colorado who performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level was 36 percent in 2024. This percentage was not significantly different from that in 2022 (38 percent) and in 1998 (33 percent)." A move NAEP calls not significant is neither a rise nor a fall. Among the other 51 states/jurisdictions, Colorado's 2024 score was lower than 1, higher than 39, and not significantly different from 11.
What this cannot be compared to The scheduled 2021 state NAEP administration was postponed to 2022 (COVID-19); no 2020 or 2021 assessment exists. Gap years render as gaps, never interpolated. Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics (NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card) 2024 NAEP State Snapshot Reports — Colorado, grades 4 and 8, reading and mathematics
Open the source document ↗
One snapshot per subject-grade, each stating Colorado scores for 2024, 2022, and a baseline year (1998 reading, 2003 mathematics) plus the 2024 national public-school score — only the years the document states are published. Host instability measured 2026-08-21: an expired TLS certificate in the morning, one connect timeout mid-day, a valid certificate by evening — treat fetch failures as retryable before concluding anything. The invented-sibling control (2024220ZZ4.pdf) returned an honest 404. A longer series exists in the NAEP Data Explorer API, which answers automation with unrounded values (probed 2026-08-21); building on it is a separate ship with these snapshots as its second reader. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average NAEP reading scale score for public school students in grade 4 across the nation — NCES’s "Nation (public)" row, the same public-school basis as the state figure. A comparator series for the Colorado indicator, never charted alone.
NATIONAL REFERENCE series: /ask’s contamination guard allowlists national reference series explicitly, so wiring this into render-ask requires declaring it there in the same change — a fourth national series cannot arrive silently. The 2024 snapshot states only the 2024 national score, so this series has one observation until the Data Explorer ship lands.
How this figure was reached NAEP average scale score (0-500 reading scale), public school students. NCES's "Nation (public)" row — public school students nationwide, the same basis as the state figure (not all U.S. students). NCES reports Colorado's 2024 score (221) as higher than this national score (214).
Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics (NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card) 2024 NAEP State Snapshot Reports — Colorado, grades 4 and 8, reading and mathematics
Open the source document ↗
One snapshot per subject-grade, each stating Colorado scores for 2024, 2022, and a baseline year (1998 reading, 2003 mathematics) plus the 2024 national public-school score — only the years the document states are published. Host instability measured 2026-08-21: an expired TLS certificate in the morning, one connect timeout mid-day, a valid certificate by evening — treat fetch failures as retryable before concluding anything. The invented-sibling control (2024220ZZ4.pdf) returned an honest 404. A longer series exists in the NAEP Data Explorer API, which answers automation with unrounded values (probed 2026-08-21); building on it is a separate ship with these snapshots as its second reader. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average NAEP reading scale score for Colorado public school students in grade 8, as printed in NCES's 2024 state snapshot report. NAEP is the federal sample assessment, not CMAS: NAEP "Proficient" is a deliberately higher bar than CMAS "met expectations", and NAEP scale points are not percentages — the two are never drawn on one axis or under one name.
State NAEP runs every two years; the 2021 administration was postponed to 2022 (COVID-19), so no 2020 or 2021 state assessment exists and gaps render as gaps. Only the years the 2024 snapshot itself states are published (2024, 2022, and the trend baseline); the longer NAEP series is a recorded limitation, not a blank the publisher left. NAEP is a sample: NCES marks every year-to-year comparison as significant or not, and a move NAEP calls not significant is never captioned as a rise or a fall.
How this figure was reached NAEP average scale score (0-500 reading scale), public school students. The publisher's own comparisons, which govern any caption: "The average score for students in Colorado in 2024 (265) was not significantly different from their average score in 2022 (263) and in 1998 (264)." And on the Proficient bar: "The percentage of students in Colorado who performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level was 35 percent in 2024. This percentage was not significantly different from that in 2022 (34 percent) and in 1998 (30 percent)." A move NAEP calls not significant is neither a rise nor a fall. Among the other 51 states/jurisdictions, Colorado's 2024 score was lower than 1, higher than 38, and not significantly different from 12.
What this cannot be compared to The scheduled 2021 state NAEP administration was postponed to 2022 (COVID-19); no 2020 or 2021 assessment exists. Gap years render as gaps, never interpolated. Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics (NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card) 2024 NAEP State Snapshot Reports — Colorado, grades 4 and 8, reading and mathematics
Open the source document ↗
One snapshot per subject-grade, each stating Colorado scores for 2024, 2022, and a baseline year (1998 reading, 2003 mathematics) plus the 2024 national public-school score — only the years the document states are published. Host instability measured 2026-08-21: an expired TLS certificate in the morning, one connect timeout mid-day, a valid certificate by evening — treat fetch failures as retryable before concluding anything. The invented-sibling control (2024220ZZ4.pdf) returned an honest 404. A longer series exists in the NAEP Data Explorer API, which answers automation with unrounded values (probed 2026-08-21); building on it is a separate ship with these snapshots as its second reader. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average NAEP reading scale score for public school students in grade 8 across the nation — NCES’s "Nation (public)" row, the same public-school basis as the state figure. A comparator series for the Colorado indicator, never charted alone.
NATIONAL REFERENCE series: /ask’s contamination guard allowlists national reference series explicitly, so wiring this into render-ask requires declaring it there in the same change — a fourth national series cannot arrive silently. The 2024 snapshot states only the 2024 national score, so this series has one observation until the Data Explorer ship lands.
How this figure was reached NAEP average scale score (0-500 reading scale), public school students. NCES's "Nation (public)" row — public school students nationwide, the same basis as the state figure (not all U.S. students). NCES reports Colorado's 2024 score (265) as higher than this national score (257).
Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics (NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card) 2024 NAEP State Snapshot Reports — Colorado, grades 4 and 8, reading and mathematics
Open the source document ↗
One snapshot per subject-grade, each stating Colorado scores for 2024, 2022, and a baseline year (1998 reading, 2003 mathematics) plus the 2024 national public-school score — only the years the document states are published. Host instability measured 2026-08-21: an expired TLS certificate in the morning, one connect timeout mid-day, a valid certificate by evening — treat fetch failures as retryable before concluding anything. The invented-sibling control (2024220ZZ4.pdf) returned an honest 404. A longer series exists in the NAEP Data Explorer API, which answers automation with unrounded values (probed 2026-08-21); building on it is a separate ship with these snapshots as its second reader. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average NAEP mathematics scale score for Colorado public school students in grade 4, as printed in NCES's 2024 state snapshot report. NAEP is the federal sample assessment, not CMAS: NAEP "Proficient" is a deliberately higher bar than CMAS "met expectations", and NAEP scale points are not percentages — the two are never drawn on one axis or under one name.
State NAEP runs every two years; the 2021 administration was postponed to 2022 (COVID-19), so no 2020 or 2021 state assessment exists and gaps render as gaps. Only the years the 2024 snapshot itself states are published (2024, 2022, and the trend baseline); the longer NAEP series is a recorded limitation, not a blank the publisher left. NAEP is a sample: NCES marks every year-to-year comparison as significant or not, and a move NAEP calls not significant is never captioned as a rise or a fall.
How this figure was reached NAEP average scale score (0-500 mathematics scale), public school students. The publisher's own comparisons, which govern any caption: "The average score for students in Colorado in 2024 (239) was not significantly different from their average score in 2022 (236) and was higher than their average score in 2003 (235)." And on the Proficient bar: "The percentage of students in Colorado who performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level was 42 percent in 2024. This percentage was greater than that in 2022 (36 percent) and in 2003 (34 percent)." A move NAEP calls not significant is neither a rise nor a fall. Among the other 51 states/jurisdictions, Colorado's 2024 score was lower than 4, higher than 18, and not significantly different from 29.
What this cannot be compared to The scheduled 2021 state NAEP administration was postponed to 2022 (COVID-19); no 2020 or 2021 assessment exists. Gap years render as gaps, never interpolated. Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics (NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card) 2024 NAEP State Snapshot Reports — Colorado, grades 4 and 8, reading and mathematics
Open the source document ↗
One snapshot per subject-grade, each stating Colorado scores for 2024, 2022, and a baseline year (1998 reading, 2003 mathematics) plus the 2024 national public-school score — only the years the document states are published. Host instability measured 2026-08-21: an expired TLS certificate in the morning, one connect timeout mid-day, a valid certificate by evening — treat fetch failures as retryable before concluding anything. The invented-sibling control (2024220ZZ4.pdf) returned an honest 404. A longer series exists in the NAEP Data Explorer API, which answers automation with unrounded values (probed 2026-08-21); building on it is a separate ship with these snapshots as its second reader. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average NAEP mathematics scale score for public school students in grade 4 across the nation — NCES’s "Nation (public)" row, the same public-school basis as the state figure. A comparator series for the Colorado indicator, never charted alone.
NATIONAL REFERENCE series: /ask’s contamination guard allowlists national reference series explicitly, so wiring this into render-ask requires declaring it there in the same change — a fourth national series cannot arrive silently. The 2024 snapshot states only the 2024 national score, so this series has one observation until the Data Explorer ship lands.
How this figure was reached NAEP average scale score (0-500 mathematics scale), public school students. NCES's "Nation (public)" row — public school students nationwide, the same basis as the state figure (not all U.S. students). NCES reports Colorado's 2024 score (239) as not significantly different from this national score (237).
Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics (NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card) 2024 NAEP State Snapshot Reports — Colorado, grades 4 and 8, reading and mathematics
Open the source document ↗
One snapshot per subject-grade, each stating Colorado scores for 2024, 2022, and a baseline year (1998 reading, 2003 mathematics) plus the 2024 national public-school score — only the years the document states are published. Host instability measured 2026-08-21: an expired TLS certificate in the morning, one connect timeout mid-day, a valid certificate by evening — treat fetch failures as retryable before concluding anything. The invented-sibling control (2024220ZZ4.pdf) returned an honest 404. A longer series exists in the NAEP Data Explorer API, which answers automation with unrounded values (probed 2026-08-21); building on it is a separate ship with these snapshots as its second reader. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average NAEP mathematics scale score for Colorado public school students in grade 8, as printed in NCES's 2024 state snapshot report. NAEP is the federal sample assessment, not CMAS: NAEP "Proficient" is a deliberately higher bar than CMAS "met expectations", and NAEP scale points are not percentages — the two are never drawn on one axis or under one name.
State NAEP runs every two years; the 2021 administration was postponed to 2022 (COVID-19), so no 2020 or 2021 state assessment exists and gaps render as gaps. Only the years the 2024 snapshot itself states are published (2024, 2022, and the trend baseline); the longer NAEP series is a recorded limitation, not a blank the publisher left. NAEP is a sample: NCES marks every year-to-year comparison as significant or not, and a move NAEP calls not significant is never captioned as a rise or a fall.
How this figure was reached NAEP average scale score (0-500 mathematics scale), public school students. The publisher's own comparisons, which govern any caption: "The average score for students in Colorado in 2024 (278) was not significantly different from their average score in 2022 (275) and was lower than their average score in 2003 (283)." And on the Proficient bar: "The percentage of students in Colorado who performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level was 32 percent in 2024. This percentage was not significantly different from that in 2022 (28 percent) and in 2003 (34 percent)." A move NAEP calls not significant is neither a rise nor a fall. Among the other 51 states/jurisdictions, Colorado's 2024 score was lower than 2, higher than 26, and not significantly different from 23.
What this cannot be compared to The scheduled 2021 state NAEP administration was postponed to 2022 (COVID-19); no 2020 or 2021 assessment exists. Gap years render as gaps, never interpolated. Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics (NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card) 2024 NAEP State Snapshot Reports — Colorado, grades 4 and 8, reading and mathematics
Open the source document ↗
One snapshot per subject-grade, each stating Colorado scores for 2024, 2022, and a baseline year (1998 reading, 2003 mathematics) plus the 2024 national public-school score — only the years the document states are published. Host instability measured 2026-08-21: an expired TLS certificate in the morning, one connect timeout mid-day, a valid certificate by evening — treat fetch failures as retryable before concluding anything. The invented-sibling control (2024220ZZ4.pdf) returned an honest 404. A longer series exists in the NAEP Data Explorer API, which answers automation with unrounded values (probed 2026-08-21); building on it is a separate ship with these snapshots as its second reader. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average NAEP mathematics scale score for public school students in grade 8 across the nation — NCES’s "Nation (public)" row, the same public-school basis as the state figure. A comparator series for the Colorado indicator, never charted alone.
NATIONAL REFERENCE series: /ask’s contamination guard allowlists national reference series explicitly, so wiring this into render-ask requires declaring it there in the same change — a fourth national series cannot arrive silently. The 2024 snapshot states only the 2024 national score, so this series has one observation until the Data Explorer ship lands.
How this figure was reached NAEP average scale score (0-500 mathematics scale), public school students. NCES's "Nation (public)" row — public school students nationwide, the same basis as the state figure (not all U.S. students). NCES reports Colorado's 2024 score (278) as higher than this national score (272).
Where it came from National Center for Education Statistics (NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card) 2024 NAEP State Snapshot Reports — Colorado, grades 4 and 8, reading and mathematics
Open the source document ↗
One snapshot per subject-grade, each stating Colorado scores for 2024, 2022, and a baseline year (1998 reading, 2003 mathematics) plus the 2024 national public-school score — only the years the document states are published. Host instability measured 2026-08-21: an expired TLS certificate in the morning, one connect timeout mid-day, a valid certificate by evening — treat fetch failures as retryable before concluding anything. The invented-sibling control (2024220ZZ4.pdf) returned an honest 404. A longer series exists in the NAEP Data Explorer API, which answers automation with unrounded values (probed 2026-08-21); building on it is a separate ship with these snapshots as its second reader. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Funding
What this counts Statewide average per-pupil funding under the Public School Finance Act Total Program.
CDE school finance; HB24-1448 new formula phases in FY 2025-26 through 2031-32, so this series carries a formula_change break.
What this cannot be compared to HB24-1448 new school funding formula phases in FY 2025-26 through 2031-32; per-pupil funding figures change meaning mid-stream by design. Where it came from Legislative Council Staff Financing Public Schools for FY 2025-26 (memo, 29-Jul-2025)
Open the source document ↗
Latest-vintage LCS forecast: Total Program ~$10.03B FY 2025-26 (+$252.7M vs prior year); statewide average per-pupil $11,452 (FY 2024-25) -> $11,858 (FY 2025-26). Supersedes the Sep-2024 memo's $11,448/$11,863-family forecasts — same latest-vintage-wins policy as the CBI series, disclosed in notes.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Statewide Total Program funding under the Public School Finance Act (state + local shares).
School Finance Acts + LCS memos; HB24-1448 formula phase-in breaks comparability at FY 2025-26.
How this figure was reached The STATE TOTAL line of the Legislative Council Staff district run for FY 2025-26, as appropriated in HB25-1320 and SB25-315. It equals the Total Program floor stated in Section 16 of the enrolled act, which is the section that took effect. Cross-checked against the per-pupil figure published beside it: $10,031,606,090 over the 845,943 funded pupils that same line counts is $11,858.49, and the per-pupil measure publishes $11,858.
What this cannot be compared to HB24-1448 new school funding formula phases in FY 2025-26 through 2031-32; Total Program figures from FY 2025-26 on are computed under a formula that changes year by year, so a change across this line is not a like-for-like change in funding. Where it came from Legislative Council Staff FY 2025-26 School Finance Funding — as appropriated in HB25-1320 and SB25-315 (district run, 9 Jun 2025)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
District-by-district table whose closing line reads STATE TOTAL, 845,943 funded pupils, $10,031,606,090 Total Program, $5,468,246,880 state share, $4,563,359,211 local share, $11,858 per pupil. THE ONLY DOCUMENT FOUND THAT STATES THE FIGURE ON THE POST-ENACTMENT BASIS: it names both acts in its own title, its total equals the Section 16 floor of the enrolled act, and its per-pupil figure equals the $11,858 this locale publishes from the Jul-2025 LCS memo. Those two divide into each other; the pair published before 2026-08-19 did not.
Checked against this exact file: b954057cb2c2c5cc…, 145,777 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
After school
What this counts Degrees awarded by Colorado post-secondary institutions in an academic year.
CDHE via data.colorado.gov. Rows are AGGREGATES carrying recordcount; the degree count is sum(recordcount), never the row count. 2011 is a reporting-coverage gap (15 of 28 institutions) and is PENDING, not a fall.
How this figure was reached sum(recordcount) over the CDHE degrees dataset for 2017: 29,282 degrees from 28 reporting institutions. The dataset's ROW count is not a degree count.
What this cannot be compared to Only 15 of the 28 institutions that report in adjacent years appear in 2011, so the raw total (5,677 against ~20,600 either side) is a reporting gap, not a 72% collapse in degrees. The year is published as PENDING(insufficient_coverage) and no period-over-period comparison may cross it. Where it came from Dept. of Higher Education (via data.colorado.gov) Degrees Awarded to Post-Secondary Graduates in Colorado (hxf8-ab6k)
Open the source document ↗
IMPORTANT basis note: the dataset has 221,941 ROWS but each row is an aggregate carrying a `recordcount`, so the number of degrees is sum(recordcount) = 339,853 across 2001-2017, not the row count. The 2026-08-02 triage recorded the row count as though it were a degree count; corrected here. The series is also STALE — it ends at 2017 while the catalog advertises an Aug 2026 refresh.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (17) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Share of Colorado public high school graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education — college in any form, in any state — the fall after graduation, by graduating class. Before COVID (classes of 2010-2019) the rate ranged between 55.8% and 57.8%; CDHE states that band as a range, not per-year figures, so only the three stated years are published here.
CDHE Postsecondary Access and Success report, statutory annual report under §23-1-113. The 2026 edition states three class years (2020, 2021, 2022); earlier editions state earlier years, and a longer series is a later ship that reads them. Closed every build against the report’s own headcounts: graduates x rate x in-state share must land on its printed in-state enrollee count.
How this figure was reached Enrollment in postsecondary education the fall after high school graduation, any institution, any state. Pre-COVID (classes of 2010-2019) CDHE states the rate as a range, 55.8% to 57.8% — a range, so no per-year value inside it is published here.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Higher Education Postsecondary Access and Success for Colorado’s High School Graduates — 2026 Key Findings
Open the source document ↗
Statutory report to both education committees and the State Board of Education. States the class-of-2022 college-going rate (51%) beside 2021 (49.9%) and 2020 (50.5%), the pre-COVID 2010-2019 range (55.8% to 57.8% — a RANGE, not per-year figures), the out-of-state share for 2022 (29.3%) and 2010 (20.7%), the cohort size (61,657 graduates) and the in-state enrollee count (22,215) — the last two are the reconciliation surface for the rates. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: f847fcae8d0cc32b…, 534,286 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Share of Colorado public high school graduates who continued to postsecondary education and enrolled at an OUT-OF-STATE institution. The denominator is graduates who enrolled, not the whole graduating class. CDHE states the share has risen steadily since 2010; it prints the two endpoint years.
CDHE Postsecondary Access and Success report. The 2022 out-of-state and in-state shares are printed as one split and asserted to sum to 100.
How this figure was reached Denominator: graduates who enrolled in postsecondary education, not the whole graduating class.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Higher Education Postsecondary Access and Success for Colorado’s High School Graduates — 2026 Key Findings
Open the source document ↗
Statutory report to both education committees and the State Board of Education. States the class-of-2022 college-going rate (51%) beside 2021 (49.9%) and 2020 (50.5%), the pre-COVID 2010-2019 range (55.8% to 57.8% — a RANGE, not per-year figures), the out-of-state share for 2022 (29.3%) and 2010 (20.7%), the cohort size (61,657 graduates) and the in-state enrollee count (22,215) — the last two are the reconciliation surface for the rates. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: f847fcae8d0cc32b…, 534,286 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Schools › After school
Resident tuition, University of Colorado - Boulder
$13,566
2025-26
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Resident undergraduate base tuition at University of Colorado - Boulder, per 30 credit hours per academic year, as reported to the legislature in CDHE’s Tuition and Fees Report. Base tuition excludes mandatory fees; the report prints fees and the combined figure beside it.
CDHE Tuition and Fees Report, Table 1, statutory report under C.R.S. 23-1-105.5(2)(a). The publisher’s own percent-change column is recomputed every build, and Table 2’s combined figure must equal tuition plus fees exactly. CU BOULDER CAVEAT: the 2025-26 jump is mostly a fee realignment under Long Bill Footnote 29 — the method_note on the observation carries the footnote sentence, and any surface charting this series must carry it too.
How this figure was reached Base tuition only, resident undergraduate, 30 credit hours per academic year. THE 2025-26 JUMP IS MOSTLY A FEE REALIGNMENT, NOT A PRICE RISE OF THE SAME SIZE: mandatory fees fell $1,690 to $1,040 in the same year, under Long Bill Footnote 29 — "except that mandatory student fees up to a total of $794 for 30 credit hours at the University of Colorado Boulder may be incorporated into resident tuition rates, with no resulting effective combined tuition and mandatory fee increase to any student, and any incorporated fees shall never be reestablished as a student fee." The report's own combined tuition-and-fees comparison is $14,002 to $14,606 (+4.3%), against +10.2% for base tuition alone.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Higher Education, Finance Division Tuition and Fees Report — Tuition and Fees for the 2025-2026 Academic Year
Open the source document ↗
Table 1 states resident undergraduate BASE tuition and mandatory fees for AY 2024-25 and 2025-26 with the publisher’s own one-year percent-change columns; Table 2 states the COMBINED tuition-and-fees for the same years, which must equal the Table 1 components summed — both are asserted every build. Carries the Long Bill Footnote 29 sentence that makes CU Boulder’s 10.2% base-tuition jump a fee realignment, quoted verbatim in the ingest module and required on the observation. Each annual edition covers a two-year window; a long tuition series is a later ship that reads earlier editions. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 924695fc2af8c670…, 661,108 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Resident undergraduate base tuition at Colorado State University, per 30 credit hours per academic year, as reported to the legislature in CDHE’s Tuition and Fees Report. Base tuition excludes mandatory fees; the report prints fees and the combined figure beside it.
CDHE Tuition and Fees Report, Table 1, statutory report under C.R.S. 23-1-105.5(2)(a). The publisher’s own percent-change column is recomputed every build, and Table 2’s combined figure must equal tuition plus fees exactly.
How this figure was reached Base tuition only, resident undergraduate, 30 credit hours per academic year. Mandatory fees are excluded; the report prints them beside it ($2,736 this year).
Where it came from Colorado Department of Higher Education, Finance Division Tuition and Fees Report — Tuition and Fees for the 2025-2026 Academic Year
Open the source document ↗
Table 1 states resident undergraduate BASE tuition and mandatory fees for AY 2024-25 and 2025-26 with the publisher’s own one-year percent-change columns; Table 2 states the COMBINED tuition-and-fees for the same years, which must equal the Table 1 components summed — both are asserted every build. Carries the Long Bill Footnote 29 sentence that makes CU Boulder’s 10.2% base-tuition jump a fee realignment, quoted verbatim in the ingest module and required on the observation. Each annual edition covers a two-year window; a long tuition series is a later ship that reads earlier editions. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 924695fc2af8c670…, 661,108 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Resident undergraduate base tuition at Colorado School of Mines, per 30 credit hours per academic year, as reported to the legislature in CDHE’s Tuition and Fees Report. Base tuition excludes mandatory fees; the report prints fees and the combined figure beside it.
CDHE Tuition and Fees Report, Table 1, statutory report under C.R.S. 23-1-105.5(2)(a). The publisher’s own percent-change column is recomputed every build, and Table 2’s combined figure must equal tuition plus fees exactly.
How this figure was reached Base tuition only, resident undergraduate, 30 credit hours per academic year. Mandatory fees are excluded; the report prints them beside it ($3,158 this year).
Where it came from Colorado Department of Higher Education, Finance Division Tuition and Fees Report — Tuition and Fees for the 2025-2026 Academic Year
Open the source document ↗
Table 1 states resident undergraduate BASE tuition and mandatory fees for AY 2024-25 and 2025-26 with the publisher’s own one-year percent-change columns; Table 2 states the COMBINED tuition-and-fees for the same years, which must equal the Table 1 components summed — both are asserted every build. Carries the Long Bill Footnote 29 sentence that makes CU Boulder’s 10.2% base-tuition jump a fee realignment, quoted verbatim in the ingest module and required on the observation. Each annual edition covers a two-year window; a long tuition series is a later ship that reads earlier editions. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 924695fc2af8c670…, 661,108 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The College Opportunity Fund stipend — the amount the State of Colorado pays per credit hour on behalf of an eligible undergraduate — at participating public colleges. The legislature sets the amount each year.
Read from cof.college-assist.org, the State’s own COF portal (College Assist administers the fund for CDHE). A living page with no version or date — snapshot and diff every run. cdhe.colorado.gov 403s non-browser fetchers, which is why the portal is the source of record here.
Where it came from College Assist, for the Colorado Department of Higher Education College Opportunity Fund — stipend amount
Open the source document ↗
The State’s own enrollment portal for the College Opportunity Fund stipend, administered by College Assist on CDHE’s behalf. States the per-credit-hour stipend for the academic year in a page block ("STIPEND AMOUNT FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2026-2027"), and states that "The Colorado Legislature sets the specific per credit hour amount for the stipend annually." The department’s own site refuses automated requests, which is why the stipend is read from this portal instead. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Schools › After school
College Opportunity Fund stipend, participating private colleges
$58
2026-27
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts The College Opportunity Fund stipend at participating PRIVATE colleges — half the public-college rate on the page as printed.
Same living page as the public rate; the build asserts the halving so a year that breaks it gets re-read rather than assumed.
Where it came from College Assist, for the Colorado Department of Higher Education College Opportunity Fund — stipend amount
Open the source document ↗
The State’s own enrollment portal for the College Opportunity Fund stipend, administered by College Assist on CDHE’s behalf. States the per-credit-hour stipend for the academic year in a page block ("STIPEND AMOUNT FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2026-2027"), and states that "The Colorado Legislature sets the specific per credit hour amount for the stipend annually." The department’s own site refuses automated requests, which is why the stipend is read from this portal instead. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average student loan debt of Colorado public-institution resident bachelor’s degree completers who borrowed, in nominal dollars, by academic year of completion. Average debt among Colorado public-institution resident undergraduate degree completers WHO BORROWED, in nominal dollars — completers with no debt are not in the denominator, dollars are not inflation-adjusted, and private-institution completers are not counted. Every one of those qualifiers is load-bearing. Read beside the share-of-completers-with-debt series: the average fell over the decade while the share borrowing at all also fell.
CDHE Return on Investment Report (2025 edition, statutory report under CRS 23-1-135), Figure 9 data table — the printed table under the chart, never the chart. No second publisher states these figures; the guards are internal-consistency only.
How this figure was reached Average debt among Colorado public-institution resident undergraduate degree completers WHO BORROWED, in nominal dollars — completers with no debt are not in the denominator, dollars are not inflation-adjusted, and private-institution completers are not counted. Every one of those qualifiers is load-bearing. Read beside the share-of-completers-with-debt series: the average fell over the decade while the share borrowing at all also fell.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Higher Education 2025 Higher Education Return on Investment Report
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Resolved from CDHE’s own Return on Investment page by its own link text ("2025"), never by constructed URL. The document identifies itself as the 2025 report, August 2025 — it carries no "edition" numbering, so none is claimed here. ERIC mirrors this document as ED678787 (files.eric.ed.gov); the State’s own copy is the one cited and the mirror is noted only as a fallback archive. Figures 8 and 9 print full ten-year data tables (AY 2013-14 to 2022-23) under the charts, so no chart is read. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 8917b918ce190c8a…, 7,458,393 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Schools › After school
Average debt, associate completers who borrowed
$13,100
2022-23
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Average student loan debt of Colorado public-institution resident associate degree completers who borrowed, in nominal dollars, by academic year of completion. Average debt among Colorado public-institution resident undergraduate degree completers WHO BORROWED, in nominal dollars — completers with no debt are not in the denominator, dollars are not inflation-adjusted, and private-institution completers are not counted. Every one of those qualifiers is load-bearing. Read beside the share-of-completers-with-debt series: the average fell over the decade while the share borrowing at all also fell.
Same table as the bachelor’s series. The report’s own prose range for this column ($12,900 to $14,400) is asserted against the transcription every build.
How this figure was reached Average debt among Colorado public-institution resident undergraduate degree completers WHO BORROWED, in nominal dollars — completers with no debt are not in the denominator, dollars are not inflation-adjusted, and private-institution completers are not counted. Every one of those qualifiers is load-bearing. Read beside the share-of-completers-with-debt series: the average fell over the decade while the share borrowing at all also fell.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Higher Education 2025 Higher Education Return on Investment Report
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Resolved from CDHE’s own Return on Investment page by its own link text ("2025"), never by constructed URL. The document identifies itself as the 2025 report, August 2025 — it carries no "edition" numbering, so none is claimed here. ERIC mirrors this document as ED678787 (files.eric.ed.gov); the State’s own copy is the one cited and the mirror is noted only as a fallback archive. Figures 8 and 9 print full ten-year data tables (AY 2013-14 to 2022-23) under the charts, so no chart is read. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 8917b918ce190c8a…, 7,458,393 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Share of Colorado public-institution resident bachelor’s degree completers who accrued any student loan debt, by academic year of completion. The companion to the average-debt series: the average is taken only over completers in THIS group.
CDHE Return on Investment Report, Figure 8 data table.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Higher Education 2025 Higher Education Return on Investment Report
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Resolved from CDHE’s own Return on Investment page by its own link text ("2025"), never by constructed URL. The document identifies itself as the 2025 report, August 2025 — it carries no "edition" numbering, so none is claimed here. ERIC mirrors this document as ED678787 (files.eric.ed.gov); the State’s own copy is the one cited and the mirror is noted only as a fallback archive. Figures 8 and 9 print full ten-year data tables (AY 2013-14 to 2022-23) under the charts, so no chart is read. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 8917b918ce190c8a…, 7,458,393 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Schools › After school
Associate completers who borrowed at all
32.8%
2022-23
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Share of Colorado public-institution resident associate degree completers who accrued any student loan debt, by academic year of completion.
CDHE Return on Investment Report, Figure 8 data table. The report’s own prose rounds this column’s 2013-14 value (54.5%) to "54%"; the table is published and the inconsistency is recorded and guarded in the ingest module.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Higher Education 2025 Higher Education Return on Investment Report
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Resolved from CDHE’s own Return on Investment page by its own link text ("2025"), never by constructed URL. The document identifies itself as the 2025 report, August 2025 — it carries no "edition" numbering, so none is claimed here. ERIC mirrors this document as ED678787 (files.eric.ed.gov); the State’s own copy is the one cited and the mirror is noted only as a fallback archive. Figures 8 and 9 print full ten-year data tables (AY 2013-14 to 2022-23) under the charts, so no chart is read. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 8917b918ce190c8a…, 7,458,393 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Where U.S. News placed Colorado School of Mines on its National Universities list in the 2026 Best Colleges edition, 1 = highest. A fact about what U.S. News published, not a measurement of the university. THE RANK IS A TIE, as every Colorado rank in this edition is. U.S. News ranks other Colorado schools on OTHER lists — National Liberal Arts Colleges and Regional Colleges West — and a rank on one list says nothing about a rank on another, so only this one list is published here.
Read from the U.S. News Colorado page in a browser on 2026-08-21; the ranks render client-side.
How this figure was reached U.S. News published Colorado School of Mines at number 80 in National Universities, 2026 edition, tied. An editorial ranking, published as a fact about its publisher. Read in a browser on 2026-08-21.
Where it came from U.S. News & World Report 2026 Best Colleges — Colorado
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Read in a browser on 2026-08-21. This publisher refuses non-browser clients, so the figure did NOT come from an unattended fetch and this pipeline CANNOT re-verify it — a heartbeat run will not notice if it moves. That is a weakness these rows carry and other figures on this site do not. The ranks render client-side and some school detail sits behind a paywall; only the published rank and list are read. **EVERY COLORADO RANK IS A TIE**, and that is carried on every row — "#80" alone reads as a unique position and is not one. **THREE DIFFERENT LISTS RANK COLORADO SCHOOLS** — National Universities, National Liberal Arts Colleges, and Regional Colleges West — and a rank on one says nothing about a rank on another. Only National Universities is published, so a reader cannot be invited to compare across lists; the other two are named on the page as existing rather than hidden. This is an editorial product, not an outcome measure: the federal College Scorecard is the FACT-grade alternative if outcomes are ever wanted here.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Where U.S. News placed University of Colorado Boulder on its National Universities list in the 2026 Best Colleges edition, 1 = highest. A fact about what U.S. News published, not a measurement of the university. THE RANK IS A TIE, as every Colorado rank in this edition is. U.S. News ranks other Colorado schools on OTHER lists — National Liberal Arts Colleges and Regional Colleges West — and a rank on one list says nothing about a rank on another, so only this one list is published here.
Read from the U.S. News Colorado page in a browser on 2026-08-21; the ranks render client-side.
How this figure was reached U.S. News published University of Colorado Boulder at number 97 in National Universities, 2026 edition, tied. An editorial ranking, published as a fact about its publisher. Read in a browser on 2026-08-21.
Where it came from U.S. News & World Report 2026 Best Colleges — Colorado
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Read in a browser on 2026-08-21. This publisher refuses non-browser clients, so the figure did NOT come from an unattended fetch and this pipeline CANNOT re-verify it — a heartbeat run will not notice if it moves. That is a weakness these rows carry and other figures on this site do not. The ranks render client-side and some school detail sits behind a paywall; only the published rank and list are read. **EVERY COLORADO RANK IS A TIE**, and that is carried on every row — "#80" alone reads as a unique position and is not one. **THREE DIFFERENT LISTS RANK COLORADO SCHOOLS** — National Universities, National Liberal Arts Colleges, and Regional Colleges West — and a rank on one says nothing about a rank on another. Only National Universities is published, so a reader cannot be invited to compare across lists; the other two are named on the page as existing rather than hidden. This is an editorial product, not an outcome measure: the federal College Scorecard is the FACT-grade alternative if outcomes are ever wanted here.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Where U.S. News placed University of Denver on its National Universities list in the 2026 Best Colleges edition, 1 = highest. A fact about what U.S. News published, not a measurement of the university. THE RANK IS A TIE, as every Colorado rank in this edition is. U.S. News ranks other Colorado schools on OTHER lists — National Liberal Arts Colleges and Regional Colleges West — and a rank on one list says nothing about a rank on another, so only this one list is published here.
Read from the U.S. News Colorado page in a browser on 2026-08-21; the ranks render client-side.
How this figure was reached U.S. News published University of Denver at number 117 in National Universities, 2026 edition, tied. An editorial ranking, published as a fact about its publisher. Read in a browser on 2026-08-21.
Where it came from U.S. News & World Report 2026 Best Colleges — Colorado
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Read in a browser on 2026-08-21. This publisher refuses non-browser clients, so the figure did NOT come from an unattended fetch and this pipeline CANNOT re-verify it — a heartbeat run will not notice if it moves. That is a weakness these rows carry and other figures on this site do not. The ranks render client-side and some school detail sits behind a paywall; only the published rank and list are read. **EVERY COLORADO RANK IS A TIE**, and that is carried on every row — "#80" alone reads as a unique position and is not one. **THREE DIFFERENT LISTS RANK COLORADO SCHOOLS** — National Universities, National Liberal Arts Colleges, and Regional Colleges West — and a rank on one says nothing about a rank on another. Only National Universities is published, so a reader cannot be invited to compare across lists; the other two are named on the page as existing rather than hidden. This is an editorial product, not an outcome measure: the federal College Scorecard is the FACT-grade alternative if outcomes are ever wanted here.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Where U.S. News placed Colorado State University on its National Universities list in the 2026 Best Colleges edition, 1 = highest. A fact about what U.S. News published, not a measurement of the university. THE RANK IS A TIE, as every Colorado rank in this edition is. U.S. News ranks other Colorado schools on OTHER lists — National Liberal Arts Colleges and Regional Colleges West — and a rank on one list says nothing about a rank on another, so only this one list is published here.
Read from the U.S. News Colorado page in a browser on 2026-08-21; the ranks render client-side.
How this figure was reached U.S. News published Colorado State University at number 151 in National Universities, 2026 edition, tied. An editorial ranking, published as a fact about its publisher. Read in a browser on 2026-08-21.
Where it came from U.S. News & World Report 2026 Best Colleges — Colorado
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Read in a browser on 2026-08-21. This publisher refuses non-browser clients, so the figure did NOT come from an unattended fetch and this pipeline CANNOT re-verify it — a heartbeat run will not notice if it moves. That is a weakness these rows carry and other figures on this site do not. The ranks render client-side and some school detail sits behind a paywall; only the published rank and list are read. **EVERY COLORADO RANK IS A TIE**, and that is carried on every row — "#80" alone reads as a unique position and is not one. **THREE DIFFERENT LISTS RANK COLORADO SCHOOLS** — National Universities, National Liberal Arts Colleges, and Regional Colleges West — and a rank on one says nothing about a rank on another. Only National Universities is published, so a reader cannot be invited to compare across lists; the other two are named on the page as existing rather than hidden. This is an editorial product, not an outcome measure: the federal College Scorecard is the FACT-grade alternative if outcomes are ever wanted here.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Colorado education appropriations per full-time-equivalent student, on SHEF's own adjusted basis: SHEEO adjusts each state's figure for cost of living (COLI) and enrollment mix (EMI) and states every year in constant FY 2025 dollars via its own HECA inflation index. This is the publisher's own cross-state comparison basis, quoted as such — the site makes no comparability claim beyond quoting it. $7,933 in FY 2024-25, against a U.S. average of $12,082. Education appropriations include federal stimulus in the years any was allocated (named, with the amount, on each affected year).
From SHEEO's own SHEF workbook (raw dollars plus the three published adjustment factors), reproduced by the file's own instruction and reconciled every run against four figures the FY 2025 report prints. SHEF names each fiscal year by its ending year — SHEF's FY 2025 is FY 2024-25 in this site's style. SHEEO restates history and rebases the constant dollars each annual release; latest reconciling vintage wins. Pre-FY 2001 data come from a different source with the same definitions (a registered series break).
How this figure was reached SHEF's own adjusted basis: education appropriations ÷ (COLI × EMI × HECA) ÷ net FTE enrollment, rounded to whole dollars — the publisher's cost-of-living and enrollment-mix adjustments, in constant FY 2025 dollars via SHEEO's own HECA inflation index (never CPI on top of it; the file's note 5 forbids applying both).
What this cannot be compared to The publisher's own note 4: "Data prior to FY 2001 come from a different source but have the same definitions." The definitions carry across the seam, so the series is published through it — but a period-over-period comparison crossing FY 2000 → FY 2001 crosses a source change. Where it came from State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) State Higher Education Finance (SHEF), FY 2025 — Report Data workbook, state × fiscal year 1980-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The publisher's own workbook (737 KB xlsx, "Report Data" sheet, last updated April 2026 per its own About sheet), raw dollars plus SHEEO's three published adjustment factors (COLI, EMI, HECA). The adjusted per-FTE figure is SHEF's own methodology, reproduced here and reconciled every run against four figures the FY 2025 report prints (U.S. $12,082, NH low $4,557, IL high $25,468, CO $7,933). D.C. is in the data only from FY 2011 and never in the U.S. total (publisher's note 3); pre-FY 2001 data come from a different source with the same definitions (note 4 — a registered series break); education appropriations include federal stimulus in the years any was allocated, published separately and named on every affected observation. SHEEO restates history and rebases constant dollars each annual release — latest reconciling vintage wins, and the newest-year pin stops the run on a new vintage so EXPECT is updated deliberately. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (46) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Colorado's position when the 51 SHEF jurisdictions — the 50 states plus the District of Columbia — are ordered by education appropriations per FTE on SHEF's adjusted basis, 1 = highest support per student. 42 of 51 in FY 2024-25. The series starts in FY 2010-11 because D.C. enters SHEF's data then; a rank over the earlier 50-member pool would be a different measure under the same name. Rankings of state higher-education support differ by basis — unadjusted dollars, D.C. counted or not, appropriations vs. total revenue all produce different positions — so the basis is named on every value.
Computed from the same SHEF workbook as the dollar figures, formula registered (shef_support_rank_v1). The pool is asserted at exactly 51 every year and a tie refuses rather than inventing a tiebreak. SHEF's FY 2025 file notes FTE enrollment is estimated for Arkansas and Washington in that year — the publisher's own estimates, part of the published dataset.
How this figure was reached Colorado ranked 42 of 51 jurisdictions (the 50 states plus the District of Columbia) in FY 2024-25, 1 = highest support per student, at $7,933 per FTE on SHEF's adjusted basis (COLI × EMI, constant FY 2025 dollars via HECA). A rank on a different basis is a different measure and can legitimately differ.
Where it came from State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) State Higher Education Finance (SHEF), FY 2025 — Report Data workbook, state × fiscal year 1980-2025
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The publisher's own workbook (737 KB xlsx, "Report Data" sheet, last updated April 2026 per its own About sheet), raw dollars plus SHEEO's three published adjustment factors (COLI, EMI, HECA). The adjusted per-FTE figure is SHEF's own methodology, reproduced here and reconciled every run against four figures the FY 2025 report prints (U.S. $12,082, NH low $4,557, IL high $25,468, CO $7,933). D.C. is in the data only from FY 2011 and never in the U.S. total (publisher's note 3); pre-FY 2001 data come from a different source with the same definitions (note 4 — a registered series break); education appropriations include federal stimulus in the years any was allocated, published separately and named on every affected observation. SHEEO restates history and rebases constant dollars each annual release — latest reconciling vintage wins, and the newest-year pin stops the run on a new vintage so EXPECT is updated deliberately. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (15) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Where the kids go
What this counts Students enrolled in Colorado public charter schools, PK-12.
CDE State of Charter Schools Report, statutory annual report; figures read from the report prose. Charter schools are public schools — this is a slice of the October membership, never additional to it.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Education, School Quality and Support Division State of Charter Schools Report 2026
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Statutory annual report to the Governor and both education committees. Resolved from the publications landing page by its own link text ("The 2025-26 State of Charter Schools in Colorado Annual Report"), never by constructed URL — the /fs/resource-manager/view/<uuid> route redirects to a fragile resources.finalsite.net CDN address, so the landing page is the stable entry. Enrollment figures are read from the report PROSE only; its Figures 2-3 are flattened chart labels that interleave when the PDF is read as text and are NOT read. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 049d6b6aab570bc7…, 1,528,012 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Share of Colorado public-school students enrolled in charter schools.
FACT as CDE prints it in the charter report, not our division — and recomputed every build from the charter count and the October membership (co-k12-membership), with the build refusing if the two stop agreeing at the publisher's one-decimal precision.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Education, School Quality and Support Division State of Charter Schools Report 2026
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Statutory annual report to the Governor and both education committees. Resolved from the publications landing page by its own link text ("The 2025-26 State of Charter Schools in Colorado Annual Report"), never by constructed URL — the /fs/resource-manager/view/<uuid> route redirects to a fragile resources.finalsite.net CDN address, so the landing page is the stable entry. Enrollment figures are read from the report PROSE only; its Figures 2-3 are flattened chart labels that interleave when the PDF is read as text and are NOT read. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 049d6b6aab570bc7…, 1,528,012 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Students enrolled in Colorado public online schools and online programs — CDE's own scope, "online educational programs and online schools."
CDE Office of Online and Blended Learning data snapshot and the department's October count release. The snapshot's headline tile contradicts its own prose by exactly 1,000 students; the prose figure is published because its components sum and a second CDE publication repeats it. Both sentences are pinned in the ingest lib.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Education, News Bureau News Release — Colorado sees continued declines in preschool through 12th grade enrollment (fall 2025 October count)
Open the source document ↗
States the 870,793 October 2025 total, the full-time homeschool counts for fall 2025 and fall 2024 (10,367 and 9,826, +5.5%), and the online counts for both years (34,617 and 33,629, +2.9%). The homeschool and 2025-26 online figures appear in no dated CDE document found as of 2026-08-21, so this living page is their only publisher. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Schools › Where the kids go
Homeschooled full-time, as reported to districts
10,367
2025-26
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Students reported to CDE as homeschooled full-time in the October count. A FLOOR, not a total: counts only students whose families filed the notice of intent to homeschool with a school district, as reported by districts in the Student October Home School Data collection. A family that does not file appears nowhere in this count, no funding is tied to it, and nothing validates completeness — so the true number of homeschooled students can only be higher. Home-school enrichment students (part-time district services) are reported separately and are not in this figure.
CDE October count release; mechanism per CDE's Student October reporting guide ("Families will send a form into the district notifying them of the family's intent to home school"). Any surface printing this figure must carry the floor framing.
How this figure was reached A FLOOR, not a total: counts only students whose families filed the notice of intent to homeschool with a school district, as reported by districts in the Student October Home School Data collection. A family that does not file appears nowhere in this count, no funding is tied to it, and nothing validates completeness — so the true number of homeschooled students can only be higher. Home-school enrichment students (part-time district services) are reported separately and are not in this figure.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Education, News Bureau News Release — Colorado sees continued declines in preschool through 12th grade enrollment (fall 2025 October count)
Open the source document ↗
States the 870,793 October 2025 total, the full-time homeschool counts for fall 2025 and fall 2024 (10,367 and 9,826, +5.5%), and the online counts for both years (34,617 and 33,629, +2.9%). The homeschool and 2025-26 online figures appear in no dated CDE document found as of 2026-08-21, so this living page is their only publisher. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Crime
Reported offenses, and the places two official sources disagree.
Vehicle theft
What this counts U.S. MVT rate per 100,000 applied to Colorado's population — the count Colorado would record if it matched the national rate.
Registered reference calculation from FBI CDE same-basis inputs; displayed as a dashed context line only.
How this figure was reached US rate 248.4/100k x CO population 5,957,493.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Colorado's position when states are ordered by motor vehicle theft rate per 100,000 residents, 1 = highest rate.
FBI CDE counts over Census resident population, one basis for every state. Only jurisdictions meeting the reporting-coverage threshold that year are ranked, and the number ranked is stated with every value — the qualifying set changes year to year, most sharply in 2021.
How this figure was reached Colorado ranked 3 of 47 jurisdictions meeting the coverage threshold in 2024 (1 = highest rate), at 490.3 per 100,000. Ranked set: 47 of 51.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API — all 50 states and the District of Columbia
Open the source document ↗
The same endpoint as fbi_cde_api, queried once per jurisdiction (51 calls) so Colorado can be ranked against the other states on one basis. Requests are spaced: a tight loop is rate-limited and returns non-JSON, which reads as source instability but is not. Each state carries its own percent-of-population coverage, and coverage varies enormously — the count for a low-coverage state is an undercount, so its rate would flatter every state ranked against it. Only jurisdictions meeting the coverage threshold in a given year enter that year's ranking, and the number that qualified is published with the rank.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Motor vehicle theft offenses per 100,000 residents, reported counts and matched population both from the FBI CDE summarized API.
Same-basis comparator to the national series; Colorado coverage ~99% every year.
How this figure was reached 29,363 offenses / 5,957,493 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 99.2%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts National motor vehicle theft offenses per 100,000 residents from the FBI CDE summarized API.
2021 national coverage 76.8% — below the 90% display threshold; that year is a deliberate gap.
How this figure was reached 853,282 offenses / 343,551,384 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 96.4%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Attempted and completed motor vehicle thefts reported statewide, as published by CBI's Colorado Crime Stats TOPS reports.
CBI TOPS API; stitched from overlapping 5-year report windows with exact-match overlap verification.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Bureau of Investigation Colorado Crime Stats TOPS report API (theme series)
Open the source document ↗
The JSON endpoints behind the public TOPS report pages (/tops/report/query/<theme>/[CO]/<year>/chart/2). Multi-year series are stitched from overlapping 5-year report windows; every overlapping year must match exactly or ingestion fails.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Offense records categorized Motor Vehicle Theft in the CDPS extract of FBI incident data, by incident year.
Same publisher chain as the Group A series. Diverges from the CBI series by roughly +2% to +7% per year — both are published, so both are shown; the divergence is disclosed, not resolved.
How this figure was reached Offense-record count, category Motor Vehicle Theft, incident year 2024.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Department of Public Safety (via data.colorado.gov) Crimes in Colorado (Socrata dataset j6g4-gayk)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Offense-level extract attributed to CDPS, sourced from the FBI Crime Data Explorer. Grade B because it is a derivative republication: the authoritative state source is CBI Colorado Crime Stats (interactive tool). Dataset description says "2016 through 2022" but the data actually extends through 2024 — a live DM-16 stale-description example; staleness must derive from the records, not the blurb.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (9) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Offense by offense
What this counts Homicide offenses per 100,000 residents, reported counts and matched population both from the FBI CDE summarized API. The same basis and the same request as the vehicle-theft series beside it — only the offense differs.
Colorado coverage is 98-99.5% in every year 2014-2024, and identical across offenses because coverage measures which agencies reported, not what they reported.
How this figure was reached 264 offenses / 5,957,493 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 99.2%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts National homicide offenses per 100,000 residents from the FBI CDE summarized API.
2021 national coverage 76.8% — below the 90% display threshold; that year is a deliberate gap, the same gap the vehicle-theft series carries.
How this figure was reached 17,261 offenses / 343,551,384 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 96.4%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Robbery offenses per 100,000 residents, reported counts and matched population both from the FBI CDE summarized API. The same basis and the same request as the vehicle-theft series beside it — only the offense differs.
Colorado coverage is 98-99.5% in every year 2014-2024, and identical across offenses because coverage measures which agencies reported, not what they reported.
How this figure was reached 3,806 offenses / 5,957,493 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 99.2%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts National robbery offenses per 100,000 residents from the FBI CDE summarized API.
2021 national coverage 76.8% — below the 90% display threshold; that year is a deliberate gap, the same gap the vehicle-theft series carries.
How this figure was reached 204,051 offenses / 343,551,384 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 96.4%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Aggravated assault offenses per 100,000 residents, reported counts and matched population both from the FBI CDE summarized API. The same basis and the same request as the vehicle-theft series beside it — only the offense differs.
Colorado coverage is 98-99.5% in every year 2014-2024, and identical across offenses because coverage measures which agencies reported, not what they reported.
How this figure was reached 21,090 offenses / 5,957,493 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 99.2%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts National aggravated assault offenses per 100,000 residents from the FBI CDE summarized API.
2021 national coverage 76.8% — below the 90% display threshold; that year is a deliberate gap, the same gap the vehicle-theft series carries.
How this figure was reached 852,163 offenses / 343,551,384 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 96.4%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Burglary offenses per 100,000 residents, reported counts and matched population both from the FBI CDE summarized API. The same basis and the same request as the vehicle-theft series beside it — only the offense differs.
Colorado coverage is 98-99.5% in every year 2014-2024, and identical across offenses because coverage measures which agencies reported, not what they reported.
How this figure was reached 20,853 offenses / 5,957,493 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 99.2%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts National burglary offenses per 100,000 residents from the FBI CDE summarized API.
2021 national coverage 76.8% — below the 90% display threshold; that year is a deliberate gap, the same gap the vehicle-theft series carries.
How this figure was reached 767,697 offenses / 343,551,384 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 96.4%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Larceny offenses per 100,000 residents, reported counts and matched population both from the FBI CDE summarized API. The same basis and the same request as the vehicle-theft series beside it — only the offense differs.
Colorado coverage is 98-99.5% in every year 2014-2024, and identical across offenses because coverage measures which agencies reported, not what they reported.
How this figure was reached 106,282 offenses / 5,957,493 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 99.2%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts National larceny offenses per 100,000 residents from the FBI CDE summarized API.
2021 national coverage 76.8% — below the 90% display threshold; that year is a deliberate gap, the same gap the vehicle-theft series carries.
How this figure was reached 4,194,873 offenses / 343,551,384 FBI matched population x 100,000; coverage 96.4%. The FBI's matched population, not Census resident population, because this line is drawn against the U.S. line and the two must share a basis.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. This source covered 99.2% of the population in this period. Where it came from FBI Crime Data Explorer CDE summarized offense API (state + national, with populations and coverage)
Open the source document ↗
Monthly reported offense counts with matched populations and percent-of-population coverage for both Colorado and the United States — the only same-basis state-vs-national comparator. National 2021 coverage is 76.8% (transition year): below our 90% display threshold, so the 2021 national figure is PENDING(insufficient_coverage), a visible gap, never a plotted point.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (11) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Everything reported
What this counts Count of NIBRS Group A offense records reported by Colorado law-enforcement agencies, by incident year.
NIBRS incident-based reporting; an incident may contain multiple offenses — this counts offenses, not incidents. Not comparable to pre-NIBRS SRS-era figures.
How this figure was reached Offense-record count for incident year 2024; 461 null-incident-date records excluded dataset-wide.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Department of Public Safety (via data.colorado.gov) Crimes in Colorado (Socrata dataset j6g4-gayk)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Offense-level extract attributed to CDPS, sourced from the FBI Crime Data Explorer. Grade B because it is a derivative republication: the authoritative state source is CBI Colorado Crime Stats (interactive tool). Dataset description says "2016 through 2022" but the data actually extends through 2024 — a live DM-16 stale-description example; staleness must derive from the records, not the blurb.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (9) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Violent offenses, source by source
What this counts Murder as counted in CBI's Colorado Crime Stats "Violent Crime" theme breakdown.
Published for the definitional-alignment table; the CBI and CDPS definitions do not match and the table says so.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Bureau of Investigation Colorado Crime Stats TOPS report API (theme series)
Open the source document ↗
The JSON endpoints behind the public TOPS report pages (/tops/report/query/<theme>/[CO]/<year>/chart/2). Multi-year series are stitched from overlapping 5-year report windows; every overlapping year must match exactly or ingestion fails.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Nearest CDPS-extract equivalent to CBI's Murder component.
Nearest equivalent, not an equal: see the per-component gaps in the dataset notes.
How this figure was reached Offense-record count for offense_name in [Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter], incident year 2024. Nearest CDPS equivalent to CBI's "Murder" component; the two are NOT the same definition.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Department of Public Safety (via data.colorado.gov) Crimes in Colorado (Socrata dataset j6g4-gayk)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Offense-level extract attributed to CDPS, sourced from the FBI Crime Data Explorer. Grade B because it is a derivative republication: the authoritative state source is CBI Colorado Crime Stats (interactive tool). Dataset description says "2016 through 2022" but the data actually extends through 2024 — a live DM-16 stale-description example; staleness must derive from the records, not the blurb.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Non-consensual sex offenses as counted in CBI's Colorado Crime Stats "Violent Crime" theme breakdown.
Published for the definitional-alignment table; the CBI and CDPS definitions do not match and the table says so.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Bureau of Investigation Colorado Crime Stats TOPS report API (theme series)
Open the source document ↗
The JSON endpoints behind the public TOPS report pages (/tops/report/query/<theme>/[CO]/<year>/chart/2). Multi-year series are stitched from overlapping 5-year report windows; every overlapping year must match exactly or ingestion fails.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Nearest CDPS-extract equivalent to CBI's Non-consensual sex offenses component.
Nearest equivalent, not an equal: see the per-component gaps in the dataset notes.
How this figure was reached Offense-record count for offense_name in [Rape, Sodomy, Sexual Assault With An Object, Criminal Sexual Contact], incident year 2024. Nearest CDPS equivalent to CBI's "Non-Consensual Sex Offenses" component; the two are NOT the same definition.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Department of Public Safety (via data.colorado.gov) Crimes in Colorado (Socrata dataset j6g4-gayk)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Offense-level extract attributed to CDPS, sourced from the FBI Crime Data Explorer. Grade B because it is a derivative republication: the authoritative state source is CBI Colorado Crime Stats (interactive tool). Dataset description says "2016 through 2022" but the data actually extends through 2024 — a live DM-16 stale-description example; staleness must derive from the records, not the blurb.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Assault as counted in CBI's Colorado Crime Stats "Violent Crime" theme breakdown.
Published for the definitional-alignment table; the CBI and CDPS definitions do not match and the table says so.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Bureau of Investigation Colorado Crime Stats TOPS report API (theme series)
Open the source document ↗
The JSON endpoints behind the public TOPS report pages (/tops/report/query/<theme>/[CO]/<year>/chart/2). Multi-year series are stitched from overlapping 5-year report windows; every overlapping year must match exactly or ingestion fails.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Nearest CDPS-extract equivalent to CBI's Assault component.
Nearest equivalent, not an equal: see the per-component gaps in the dataset notes.
How this figure was reached Offense-record count for offense_name in [Aggravated Assault], incident year 2024. Nearest CDPS equivalent to CBI's "Assault" component; the two are NOT the same definition.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Department of Public Safety (via data.colorado.gov) Crimes in Colorado (Socrata dataset j6g4-gayk)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Offense-level extract attributed to CDPS, sourced from the FBI Crime Data Explorer. Grade B because it is a derivative republication: the authoritative state source is CBI Colorado Crime Stats (interactive tool). Dataset description says "2016 through 2022" but the data actually extends through 2024 — a live DM-16 stale-description example; staleness must derive from the records, not the blurb.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Robbery as counted in CBI's Colorado Crime Stats "Violent Crime" theme breakdown.
Published for the definitional-alignment table; the CBI and CDPS definitions do not match and the table says so.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Bureau of Investigation Colorado Crime Stats TOPS report API (theme series)
Open the source document ↗
The JSON endpoints behind the public TOPS report pages (/tops/report/query/<theme>/[CO]/<year>/chart/2). Multi-year series are stitched from overlapping 5-year report windows; every overlapping year must match exactly or ingestion fails.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Nearest CDPS-extract equivalent to CBI's Robbery component.
Nearest equivalent, not an equal: see the per-component gaps in the dataset notes.
How this figure was reached Offense-record count for offense_name in [Robbery], incident year 2024. Nearest CDPS equivalent to CBI's "Robbery" component; the two are NOT the same definition.
What this cannot be compared to FBI retired summary (SRS) reporting nationally; NIBRS counts every offense in an incident where SRS counted only the most serious. National offense counts rise mechanically across this line with zero change in actual crime. CBI flags 2013 as the year Colorado agency reporting became reliably NIBRS statewide; default charts start at 2013. Where it came from Colorado Department of Public Safety (via data.colorado.gov) Crimes in Colorado (Socrata dataset j6g4-gayk)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Offense-level extract attributed to CDPS, sourced from the FBI Crime Data Explorer. Grade B because it is a derivative republication: the authoritative state source is CBI Colorado Crime Stats (interactive tool). Dataset description says "2016 through 2022" but the data actually extends through 2024 — a live DM-16 stale-description example; staleness must derive from the records, not the blurb.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised
Four public works, and the half of each that was never built.
I-70 Floyd Hill
What was promised › I-70 Floyd Hill
I-70 Floyd Hill — scope as estimated while unfunded, 2018
$550.0 million
2018
FACT pre-design scope estimate transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts I-70 Floyd Hill — scope as estimated while unfunded, 2018. Basis: pre-design scope estimate.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached I-70 Floyd Hill — scope as estimated while unfunded, 2018 — pre-design scope estimate. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “pre-design scope estimate”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Secretary of State / contemporaneous reporting Propositions 109 and 110 (2018), and CDOT project status at the time
Open the source document ↗
Both measures defeated. The ~$550M unfunded scope for Floyd Hill at that time comes from reporting, not from a CDOT document, hence grade B. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › I-70 Floyd Hill
I-70 Floyd Hill — estimate used at launch, 2020
$700.0 million
2020
FACT pre-design cost estimate transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts I-70 Floyd Hill — estimate used at launch, 2020. Basis: pre-design cost estimate.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached I-70 Floyd Hill — estimate used at launch, 2020 — pre-design cost estimate. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “pre-design cost estimate”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Department of Transportation I-70 Floyd Hill Project page and project updates
Open the source document ↗
Carries the $905M cost to deliver, the 2020 $700M estimate it replaced, the schedule, and the CM/GC delivery method. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › I-70 Floyd Hill
I-70 Floyd Hill — cost to deliver as scoped, 2025
$905.0 million
2025
FACT cost to deliver, CM/GC transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts I-70 Floyd Hill — cost to deliver as scoped, 2025. Basis: cost to deliver, CM/GC.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached I-70 Floyd Hill — cost to deliver as scoped, 2025 — cost to deliver, CM/GC. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “cost to deliver, CM/GC”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Department of Transportation I-70 Floyd Hill Project page and project updates
Open the source document ↗
Carries the $905M cost to deliver, the 2020 $700M estimate it replaced, the schedule, and the CM/GC delivery method. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › I-70 Floyd Hill
I-70 Floyd Hill — increase from the 2020 estimate to the 2025 cost to deliver
29.3%
2020→2025
CALC derived derived
Link to this measure
What this counts I-70 Floyd Hill — increase from the 2020 estimate to the 2025 cost to deliver. CALC: 100 x (905,000,000 / 700,000,000 - 1).
Derived at ingest from co-sp-floydhill-2020 and co-sp-floydhill-2025; never transcribed.
How this figure was reached 100 x (905,000,000 / 700,000,000 - 1). Re-derived at ingest from co-sp-floydhill-2020 and co-sp-floydhill-2025 and asserted against the figure the page publishes.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “derived”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Department of Transportation I-70 Floyd Hill Project page and project updates
Open the source document ↗
Carries the $905M cost to deliver, the 2020 $700M estimate it replaced, the schedule, and the CM/GC delivery method. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
FasTracks and the B Line
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
FasTracks — program cost on the 2004 ballot
$4.70 billion
2004
FACT ballot program cost, 2004 dollars transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts FasTracks — program cost on the 2004 ballot. Basis: ballot program cost, 2004 dollars.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached FasTracks — program cost on the 2004 ballot — ballot program cost, 2004 dollars. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “ballot program cost, 2004 dollars”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
FasTracks — program cost as re-estimated, 2011
$7.80 billion
2011
FACT program re-estimate transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts FasTracks — program cost as re-estimated, 2011. Basis: program re-estimate.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached FasTracks — program cost as re-estimated, 2011 — program re-estimate. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “program re-estimate”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
FasTracks — expended to date
$5.50 billion
2025
FACT expenditure to date transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts FasTracks — expended to date. Basis: expenditure to date.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached FasTracks — expended to date — expenditure to date. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “expenditure to date”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
FasTracks — capital and operating cost to complete four corridors
$1.60 billion
2025
FACT cost to complete, reduced scope transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts FasTracks — capital and operating cost to complete four corridors. Basis: cost to complete, reduced scope.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached FasTracks — capital and operating cost to complete four corridors — cost to complete, reduced scope. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “cost to complete, reduced scope”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
FasTracks — funding RTD projects as available
$441.0 million
2025
FACT projected available funding transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts FasTracks — funding RTD projects as available. Basis: projected available funding.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached FasTracks — funding RTD projects as available — projected available funding. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “projected available funding”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
B Line — route miles opened, Union Station to Westminster
6.2
2016
FACT route miles in service transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts B Line — route miles opened, Union Station to Westminster. Basis: route miles in service.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached B Line — route miles opened, Union Station to Westminster — route miles in service. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “route miles in service”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
B Line — corridor miles as described on the 2004 ballot
41
2004
FACT planned corridor length transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts B Line — corridor miles as described on the 2004 ballot. Basis: planned corridor length.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached B Line — corridor miles as described on the 2004 ballot — planned corridor length. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “planned corridor length”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
B Line — corridor miles described on the ballot and not built
34.8
2026
CALC derived derived
Link to this measure
What this counts B Line — corridor miles described on the ballot and not built. CALC: 41 - 6.2.
Derived at ingest from co-sp-bline-corridor-miles and co-sp-bline-built-miles; never transcribed.
How this figure was reached 41 - 6.2. Re-derived at ingest from co-sp-bline-corridor-miles and co-sp-bline-built-miles and asserted against the figure the page publishes.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “derived”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
B Line — share of the balloted corridor in service
15.1%
2026
CALC derived derived
Link to this measure
What this counts B Line — share of the balloted corridor in service. CALC: 100 x (6.2 / 41).
Derived at ingest from co-sp-bline-built-miles and co-sp-bline-corridor-miles; never transcribed.
How this figure was reached 100 x (6.2 / 41). Re-derived at ingest from co-sp-bline-built-miles and co-sp-bline-corridor-miles and asserted against the figure the page publishes.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “derived”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
B Line — share of the balloted corridor never built
84.9%
2026
CALC derived derived
Link to this measure
What this counts B Line — share of the balloted corridor never built. CALC: 100 x ((41 - 6.2) / 41).
Derived at ingest from co-sp-bline-corridor-miles and co-sp-bline-built-miles; never transcribed.
How this figure was reached 100 x ((41 - 6.2) / 41). Re-derived at ingest from co-sp-bline-corridor-miles and co-sp-bline-built-miles and asserted against the figure the page publishes.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “derived”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › FasTracks and the B Line
FasTracks — years since the ballot that approved the program
21
2004-11-02→ingest
CALC derived derived
Link to this measure
What this counts FasTracks — years since the ballot that approved the program. CALC: whole years from 2004-11-02 (metro Denver voted for the program) to the date this dataset was built.
Derived at ingest from co-sp-fastracks-ballot; never transcribed.
How this figure was reached whole years from 2004-11-02 (metro Denver voted for the program) to the date this dataset was built. Re-derived at ingest from co-sp-fastracks-ballot and asserted against the figure the page publishes.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “derived”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Finishing FasTracks report (2025) and the 2004 FasTracks ballot
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. NOT state appropriation and never mixed into a state total — the page labels these RTD-PUBLISHED for that reason. Read 2026-08-07.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The mountain rail line
What was promised › The mountain rail line
Advanced Guideway System — capital cost, low estimate
$13.30 billion
2014
FACT capital cost estimate, first phase C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Advanced Guideway System — capital cost, low estimate. Basis: capital cost estimate, first phase C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached Advanced Guideway System — capital cost, low estimate — capital cost estimate, first phase C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital cost estimate, first phase C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Summit Daily (contemporaneous reporting of the study release) CDOT releases study of I-70 rail (4 March 2014)
Open the source document ↗
Carries the $13.3–16.5B capital range and states the phase it covers: I-70/C-470 near Golden to Eagle County Regional Airport. Agrees with CDOT's own page on the feasibility finding. Grade B because it is reporting on the study, not the study. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › The mountain rail line
Advanced Guideway System — capital cost, high estimate
$16.50 billion
2014
FACT capital cost estimate, first phase C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Advanced Guideway System — capital cost, high estimate. Basis: capital cost estimate, first phase C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached Advanced Guideway System — capital cost, high estimate — capital cost estimate, first phase C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “capital cost estimate, first phase C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Summit Daily (contemporaneous reporting of the study release) CDOT releases study of I-70 rail (4 March 2014)
Open the source document ↗
Carries the $13.3–16.5B capital range and states the phase it covers: I-70/C-470 near Golden to Eagle County Regional Airport. Agrees with CDOT's own page on the feasibility finding. Grade B because it is reporting on the study, not the study. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › The mountain rail line
Advanced Guideway System — private financing ceiling identified
$3.00 billion
2014
FACT financing capacity estimate transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Advanced Guideway System — private financing ceiling identified. Basis: financing capacity estimate.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached Advanced Guideway System — private financing ceiling identified — financing capacity estimate. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “financing capacity estimate”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Department of Transportation Advanced Guideway System Feasibility Study (2014) and the I-70 Mountain Corridor Record of Decision (2011)
Open the source document ↗
Technically feasible, not financially feasible; private-financing ceiling of $1–3B; 120-mile study area, C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport. Redirects to /projects/archives/study-archives/agsstudy. Carries the study SUMMARY only — "for access to the study findings and documents, contact the project manager" — so the capital-cost range is NOT on it and is cited to reporting instead. Its own $16.5B is DIA-to-Eagle inside a $30B statewide system, a different figure that happens to share a value. Read 2026-08-07, re-probed 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › The mountain rail line
Advanced Guideway System — funded since the Record of Decision
$0
2011–2026
FACT appropriated or committed funding transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Advanced Guideway System — funded since the Record of Decision. Basis: appropriated or committed funding.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached Advanced Guideway System — funded since the Record of Decision — appropriated or committed funding. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “appropriated or committed funding”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Department of Transportation Advanced Guideway System Feasibility Study (2014) and the I-70 Mountain Corridor Record of Decision (2011)
Open the source document ↗
Technically feasible, not financially feasible; private-financing ceiling of $1–3B; 120-mile study area, C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport. Redirects to /projects/archives/study-archives/agsstudy. Carries the study SUMMARY only — "for access to the study findings and documents, contact the project manager" — so the capital-cost range is NOT on it and is cited to reporting instead. Its own $16.5B is DIA-to-Eagle inside a $30B statewide system, a different figure that happens to share a value. Read 2026-08-07, re-probed 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › The mountain rail line
High-speed transit low estimate as a multiple of Floyd Hill's cost to deliver
14.7×
2014 vs 2025
CALC derived derived
Link to this measure
What this counts High-speed transit low estimate as a multiple of Floyd Hill's cost to deliver. CALC: 13,300,000,000 / 905,000,000.
Derived at ingest from co-sp-ags-low and co-sp-floydhill-2025; never transcribed.
How this figure was reached 13,300,000,000 / 905,000,000. Re-derived at ingest from co-sp-ags-low and co-sp-floydhill-2025 and asserted against the figure the page publishes.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “derived”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Summit Daily (contemporaneous reporting of the study release) CDOT releases study of I-70 rail (4 March 2014)
Open the source document ↗
Carries the $13.3–16.5B capital range and states the phase it covers: I-70/C-470 near Golden to Eagle County Regional Airport. Agrees with CDOT's own page on the feasibility finding. Grade B because it is reporting on the study, not the study. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › The mountain rail line
High-speed transit high estimate as a multiple of Floyd Hill's cost to deliver
18.2×
2014 vs 2025
CALC derived derived
Link to this measure
What this counts High-speed transit high estimate as a multiple of Floyd Hill's cost to deliver. CALC: 16,500,000,000 / 905,000,000.
Derived at ingest from co-sp-ags-high and co-sp-floydhill-2025; never transcribed.
How this figure was reached 16,500,000,000 / 905,000,000. Re-derived at ingest from co-sp-ags-high and co-sp-floydhill-2025 and asserted against the figure the page publishes.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “derived”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Summit Daily (contemporaneous reporting of the study release) CDOT releases study of I-70 rail (4 March 2014)
Open the source document ↗
Carries the $13.3–16.5B capital range and states the phase it covers: I-70/C-470 near Golden to Eagle County Regional Airport. Agrees with CDOT's own page on the feasibility finding. Grade B because it is reporting on the study, not the study. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › The mountain rail line
Advanced Guideway System — years since the Record of Decision, unfunded throughout
15
2011-06-16→ingest
CALC derived derived
Link to this measure
What this counts Advanced Guideway System — years since the Record of Decision, unfunded throughout. CALC: whole years from 2011-06-16 (the Federal Highway Administration signed the Record of Decision) to the date this dataset was built.
Derived at ingest from co-sp-ags-funded; never transcribed.
How this figure was reached whole years from 2011-06-16 (the Federal Highway Administration signed the Record of Decision) to the date this dataset was built. Re-derived at ingest from co-sp-ags-funded and asserted against the figure the page publishes.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “derived”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Colorado Department of Transportation Advanced Guideway System Feasibility Study (2014) and the I-70 Mountain Corridor Record of Decision (2011)
Open the source document ↗
Technically feasible, not financially feasible; private-financing ceiling of $1–3B; 120-mile study area, C-470 to Eagle County Regional Airport. Redirects to /projects/archives/study-archives/agsstudy. Carries the study SUMMARY only — "for access to the study findings and documents, contact the project manager" — so the capital-cost range is NOT on it and is cited to reporting instead. Its own $16.5B is DIA-to-Eagle inside a $30B statewide system, a different figure that happens to share a value. Read 2026-08-07, re-probed 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
T-REX
What was promised › T-REX
T-REX — program budget
$1.67 billion
2006
FACT program budget, $879M light rail + $795M highway transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts T-REX — program budget. Basis: program budget, $879M light rail + $795M highway.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached T-REX — program budget — program budget, $879M light rail + $795M highway. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “program budget, $879M light rail + $795M highway”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Regional Transportation District Southeast Corridor light rail line — facts and figures
Open the source document ↗
RTD reporting on itself. States the $1.67B program and its split ($879M light rail, $795M highway), and that the line "opened ahead of schedule and under budget on November 17, 2006". Confirms the DIRECTION of the delivery record and quantifies neither the percentage nor the months. Read 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › T-REX
T-REX — under the design-build contract price, as bid
3.2%
2001
FACT bid commitment: $39M against the $1.23B design-build contract price transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts T-REX — under the design-build contract price, as bid. Basis: bid commitment: $39M against the $1.23B design-build contract price.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached T-REX — under the design-build contract price, as bid — bid commitment: $39M against the $1.23B design-build contract price. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “bid commitment: $39M against the $1.23B design-build contract price”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from FHWA Public Roads, September/October 2001 Colossal Partnership: Denver's $1.67 Billion T-REX Project
Open the source document ↗
DATED 2001, five years BEFORE completion, so it states the winning team's bid commitment and never a delivered outcome: finish by September 2006, 22 months ahead of schedule, $39M under the $1.23B design-build contract price. The live URL no longer serves it — every /public-roads/ path redirects to a maintenance page returning 200 for real and invented routes alike — so read the Wayback capture web/20250216004555. Read 2026-08-07, re-probed 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What was promised › T-REX
T-REX — ahead of contract schedule, as bid
22
2001
FACT bid commitment against the contract schedule transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts T-REX — ahead of contract schedule, as bid. Basis: bid commitment against the contract schedule.
Transcribed from the named document; not parsed from a feed.
How this figure was reached T-REX — ahead of contract schedule, as bid — bid commitment against the contract schedule. Read by hand from the source named in source_key: no machine-readable publisher feed states this figure.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “bid commitment against the contract schedule”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from FHWA Public Roads, September/October 2001 Colossal Partnership: Denver's $1.67 Billion T-REX Project
Open the source document ↗
DATED 2001, five years BEFORE completion, so it states the winning team's bid commitment and never a delivered outcome: finish by September 2006, 22 months ahead of schedule, $39M under the $1.23B design-build contract price. The live URL no longer serves it — every /public-roads/ path redirects to a maintenance page returning 200 for real and invented routes alike — so read the Wayback capture web/20250216004555. Read 2026-08-07, re-probed 2026-08-08.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood
What care costs before kindergarten, and what the state does about it.
Licensed capacity
What this counts Total licensed capacity across all licensed child care facilities in Colorado.
CDEC provider-level licensing register; capacity summed across providers and reconciled against the per-county sum.
How this figure was reached sum(total_licensed_capacity) over 4,531 licensed providers; reconciled against the per-county sum across 64 counties. 2 provider(s) carry a quality-rating date after the read date (the latest 2027-09-30), which cannot date the register and is not used to date it; their capacity is counted.
Where it came from Dept. of Early Childhood (via data.colorado.gov) Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report (a9rr-k8mu)
Open the source document ↗
Provider-level licensing register, 27 fields, current (latest award date 2026-06-30). Capacity and licensing only — NOT the Universal Preschool award data the state's own PY2024-25 report says cannot be used to assess awards.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Number of licensed child care providers on the CDEC register.
Same register as capacity; counts reconcile across all 64 counties.
How this figure was reached count of licensed providers on the CDEC register; reconciled against the per-county sum across 64 counties. 2 provider(s) carry a quality-rating date after the read date (the latest 2027-09-30), which cannot date the register and is not used to date it; their capacity is counted.
Where it came from Dept. of Early Childhood (via data.colorado.gov) Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report (a9rr-k8mu)
Open the source document ↗
Provider-level licensing register, 27 fields, current (latest award date 2026-06-30). Capacity and licensing only — NOT the Universal Preschool award data the state's own PY2024-25 report says cannot be used to assess awards.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What a year of care costs
Early childhood › What a year of care costs
Annual price of infant care, center (Child Care Aware of America)
$20,978
2024
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Average annual price of center-based child care for an infant in Colorado, as published by Child Care Aware of America.
Child Care Aware of America's figure, from its 2024 Price & Supply Report. A national nonprofit's survey, not a government statistic.
Where it came from Child Care Aware of America Child Care Affordability in Colorado — 2024-25 price fact sheet (from "Child Care in America: 2024 Price & Supply Report")
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
A NONPROFIT aggregator, not a government publisher — grade B, and every indicator built on this sheet names CCAoA in its title so the figure is never mistaken for a state statistic. One-page state fact sheet: annual prices by age and setting, plus affordability shares against CCAoA's printed median incomes and the HHS <7% benchmark. The sheet prints the IDENTICAL $13,666 for an infant and a toddler in family child care, and prints NO standalone 4-year-old price, so its two-children figure cannot be component-checked. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 4e49167af18dc163…, 119,692 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average annual price of center-based child care for a toddler in Colorado, as published by Child Care Aware of America.
Child Care Aware of America's figure, from its 2024 Price & Supply Report. A national nonprofit's survey, not a government statistic.
Where it came from Child Care Aware of America Child Care Affordability in Colorado — 2024-25 price fact sheet (from "Child Care in America: 2024 Price & Supply Report")
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
A NONPROFIT aggregator, not a government publisher — grade B, and every indicator built on this sheet names CCAoA in its title so the figure is never mistaken for a state statistic. One-page state fact sheet: annual prices by age and setting, plus affordability shares against CCAoA's printed median incomes and the HHS <7% benchmark. The sheet prints the IDENTICAL $13,666 for an infant and a toddler in family child care, and prints NO standalone 4-year-old price, so its two-children figure cannot be component-checked. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 4e49167af18dc163…, 119,692 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › What a year of care costs
Annual price of infant care, family child care home (Child Care Aware of America)
$13,666
2024
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Average annual price of family-child-care-home care for an infant in Colorado, as published by Child Care Aware of America.
Child Care Aware of America's figure, from its 2024 Price & Supply Report. A national nonprofit's survey, not a government statistic. The sheet prints the identical price for an infant and a toddler in this setting; both are published because both are printed.
How this figure was reached The sheet prints the identical price for an infant and a toddler in family child care; both are published because both are printed.
Where it came from Child Care Aware of America Child Care Affordability in Colorado — 2024-25 price fact sheet (from "Child Care in America: 2024 Price & Supply Report")
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
A NONPROFIT aggregator, not a government publisher — grade B, and every indicator built on this sheet names CCAoA in its title so the figure is never mistaken for a state statistic. One-page state fact sheet: annual prices by age and setting, plus affordability shares against CCAoA's printed median incomes and the HHS <7% benchmark. The sheet prints the IDENTICAL $13,666 for an infant and a toddler in family child care, and prints NO standalone 4-year-old price, so its two-children figure cannot be component-checked. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 4e49167af18dc163…, 119,692 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › What a year of care costs
Annual price of toddler care, family child care home (Child Care Aware of America)
$13,666
2024
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Average annual price of family-child-care-home care for a toddler in Colorado, as published by Child Care Aware of America.
Child Care Aware of America's figure, from its 2024 Price & Supply Report. A national nonprofit's survey, not a government statistic. The sheet prints the identical price for an infant and a toddler in this setting; both are published because both are printed.
How this figure was reached The sheet prints the identical price for an infant and a toddler in family child care; both are published because both are printed.
Where it came from Child Care Aware of America Child Care Affordability in Colorado — 2024-25 price fact sheet (from "Child Care in America: 2024 Price & Supply Report")
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
A NONPROFIT aggregator, not a government publisher — grade B, and every indicator built on this sheet names CCAoA in its title so the figure is never mistaken for a state statistic. One-page state fact sheet: annual prices by age and setting, plus affordability shares against CCAoA's printed median incomes and the HHS <7% benchmark. The sheet prints the IDENTICAL $13,666 for an infant and a toddler in family child care, and prints NO standalone 4-year-old price, so its two-children figure cannot be component-checked. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 4e49167af18dc163…, 119,692 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Average annual price of center-based care for two children — an infant and a 4-year-old — in Colorado, as published by Child Care Aware of America. On the same sheet this exceeds its average annual housing cost and its average annual college tuition figure.
Child Care Aware of America's figure, from its 2024 Price & Supply Report. A national nonprofit's survey, not a government statistic. Cannot be component-checked: the sheet prints no standalone 4-year-old price, and the difference from the infant price is never derived or published.
How this figure was reached An infant and a 4-year-old in center care. The sheet prints no standalone 4-year-old price, so this figure cannot be checked against components and no component is derived from it. On the same sheet: housing $26,772, college tuition $13,180.
Where it came from Child Care Aware of America Child Care Affordability in Colorado — 2024-25 price fact sheet (from "Child Care in America: 2024 Price & Supply Report")
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
A NONPROFIT aggregator, not a government publisher — grade B, and every indicator built on this sheet names CCAoA in its title so the figure is never mistaken for a state statistic. One-page state fact sheet: annual prices by age and setting, plus affordability shares against CCAoA's printed median incomes and the HHS <7% benchmark. The sheet prints the IDENTICAL $13,666 for an infant and a toddler in family child care, and prints NO standalone 4-year-old price, so its two-children figure cannot be component-checked. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 4e49167af18dc163…, 119,692 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › What a year of care costs
Infant center care as a share of married-couple median income (Child Care Aware of America)
14%
2024
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Center-based infant care as a share of CCAoA's printed median income for a married-couple family in Colorado. The US Department of Health and Human Services' affordability benchmark on the same sheet is under 7% of household income.
Child Care Aware of America's figure, from its 2024 Price & Supply Report. A national nonprofit's survey, not a government statistic. Recomputed every build from the sheet's own price and median at its whole-percent precision; the build refuses if they stop agreeing.
How this figure was reached CCAoA's own framing: $20,978 of its printed $147,124 married-couple median income. The HHS benchmark on the same sheet is under 7%. Recomputed at the sheet's whole-percent precision every build.
Where it came from Child Care Aware of America Child Care Affordability in Colorado — 2024-25 price fact sheet (from "Child Care in America: 2024 Price & Supply Report")
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
A NONPROFIT aggregator, not a government publisher — grade B, and every indicator built on this sheet names CCAoA in its title so the figure is never mistaken for a state statistic. One-page state fact sheet: annual prices by age and setting, plus affordability shares against CCAoA's printed median incomes and the HHS <7% benchmark. The sheet prints the IDENTICAL $13,666 for an infant and a toddler in family child care, and prints NO standalone 4-year-old price, so its two-children figure cannot be component-checked. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 4e49167af18dc163…, 119,692 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › What a year of care costs
Infant center care as a share of single-parent median income (Child Care Aware of America)
43%
2024
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Center-based infant care as a share of CCAoA's printed median income for a single-parent family in Colorado. The US Department of Health and Human Services' affordability benchmark on the same sheet is under 7% of household income.
Child Care Aware of America's figure, from its 2024 Price & Supply Report. A national nonprofit's survey, not a government statistic. Recomputed every build from the sheet's own price and median at its whole-percent precision; the build refuses if they stop agreeing.
How this figure was reached CCAoA's own framing: $20,978 of its printed $48,348 single-parent median income. The HHS benchmark on the same sheet is under 7%. Recomputed at the sheet's whole-percent precision every build.
Where it came from Child Care Aware of America Child Care Affordability in Colorado — 2024-25 price fact sheet (from "Child Care in America: 2024 Price & Supply Report")
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
A NONPROFIT aggregator, not a government publisher — grade B, and every indicator built on this sheet names CCAoA in its title so the figure is never mistaken for a state statistic. One-page state fact sheet: annual prices by age and setting, plus affordability shares against CCAoA's printed median incomes and the HHS <7% benchmark. The sheet prints the IDENTICAL $13,666 for an infant and a toddler in family child care, and prints NO standalone 4-year-old price, so its two-children figure cannot be component-checked. Read 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 4e49167af18dc163…, 119,692 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What care cost when the state last measured
Early childhood › What care cost when the state last measured
Market daily rate, center, 0-18 months (2022 study)
$75.28
2022
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Statewide mean daily price of full-time center care for a child 0-18 months, 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study.
From the 2022 Market Rate Study — the LAST market survey of Colorado child care prices: a federally approved cost-based alternative methodology replaced the market survey effective October 1, 2024 (stated by CDEC's own page and by the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report), so this series ends at 2022 by the state's own design and no newer market price should be expected. Statewide mean daily rate for full-time care, QRIS Level 3 (the study's 50th-percentile tier), weighted by licensed slots per county.
Where it came from Brodsky Research and Consulting, for the Colorado Department of Human Services 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study (June 2022)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
THE LAST TRUE MARKET SURVEY. CDEC's alternate-methodology page and the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report both state that a federally approved cost-based methodology replaced the market rate survey effective October 1, 2024 — so no newer market price exists and none should be expected. CONTRADICTS ITSELF on two of seven statewide Level-3 cells: the executive summary's "2022 Price" box prints Table 9's 2021 column for center 18-36 mos. and center 36 mos.-6 yrs.; those two cells are held PENDING(under_reconciliation), see MRS_CONTRADICTION. Resolved from the CDEC landing page's own link (cdec.colorado.gov answers 403 to non-browser fetchers; a browser user-agent cleared it, measured 2026-08-21). Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: af1b0094e2c7d359…, 2,011,605 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › What care cost when the state last measured
Market daily rate, center, 18-36 months (2022 study)
Not published
2022
PENDING
The publisher has not put it out.
Link to this measure
What this counts Statewide mean daily price of full-time center care for a child 18-36 months, 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study. HELD: the study prints this cell twice and the printings disagree ($62.72 in the executive summary vs $65.59 in Table 9's named 2022 column).
From the 2022 Market Rate Study — the LAST market survey of Colorado child care prices: a federally approved cost-based alternative methodology replaced the market survey effective October 1, 2024 (stated by CDEC's own page and by the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report), so this series ends at 2022 by the state's own design and no newer market price should be expected. Statewide mean daily rate for full-time care, QRIS Level 3 (the study's 50th-percentile tier), weighted by licensed slots per county. See MRS_CONTRADICTION in the ingest lib.
How this figure was reached The study prints this cell twice and the printings disagree: $62.72 (executive summary "2022 Price") vs $65.59 (Table 9's named "2022 Survey Results" column, whose 2021 column is $62.72 — a transposed column). Held until a person decides which printing this site repeats; see MRS_CONTRADICTION.
Where it came from Brodsky Research and Consulting, for the Colorado Department of Human Services 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study (June 2022)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
THE LAST TRUE MARKET SURVEY. CDEC's alternate-methodology page and the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report both state that a federally approved cost-based methodology replaced the market rate survey effective October 1, 2024 — so no newer market price exists and none should be expected. CONTRADICTS ITSELF on two of seven statewide Level-3 cells: the executive summary's "2022 Price" box prints Table 9's 2021 column for center 18-36 mos. and center 36 mos.-6 yrs.; those two cells are held PENDING(under_reconciliation), see MRS_CONTRADICTION. Resolved from the CDEC landing page's own link (cdec.colorado.gov answers 403 to non-browser fetchers; a browser user-agent cleared it, measured 2026-08-21). Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: af1b0094e2c7d359…, 2,011,605 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › What care cost when the state last measured
Market daily rate, center, 36 months-6 years (2022 study)
Not published
2022
PENDING
The publisher has not put it out.
Link to this measure
What this counts Statewide mean daily price of full-time center care for a child 36 months to 6 years, 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study. HELD: the study prints this cell twice and the printings disagree ($53.11 in the executive summary vs $58.03 in Table 9's named 2022 column).
From the 2022 Market Rate Study — the LAST market survey of Colorado child care prices: a federally approved cost-based alternative methodology replaced the market survey effective October 1, 2024 (stated by CDEC's own page and by the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report), so this series ends at 2022 by the state's own design and no newer market price should be expected. Statewide mean daily rate for full-time care, QRIS Level 3 (the study's 50th-percentile tier), weighted by licensed slots per county. See MRS_CONTRADICTION in the ingest lib.
How this figure was reached The study prints this cell twice and the printings disagree: $53.11 (executive summary "2022 Price") vs $58.03 (Table 9's named "2022 Survey Results" column, whose 2021 column is $53.11 — a transposed column). Held until a person decides which printing this site repeats; see MRS_CONTRADICTION.
Where it came from Brodsky Research and Consulting, for the Colorado Department of Human Services 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study (June 2022)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
THE LAST TRUE MARKET SURVEY. CDEC's alternate-methodology page and the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report both state that a federally approved cost-based methodology replaced the market rate survey effective October 1, 2024 — so no newer market price exists and none should be expected. CONTRADICTS ITSELF on two of seven statewide Level-3 cells: the executive summary's "2022 Price" box prints Table 9's 2021 column for center 18-36 mos. and center 36 mos.-6 yrs.; those two cells are held PENDING(under_reconciliation), see MRS_CONTRADICTION. Resolved from the CDEC landing page's own link (cdec.colorado.gov answers 403 to non-browser fetchers; a browser user-agent cleared it, measured 2026-08-21). Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: af1b0094e2c7d359…, 2,011,605 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › What care cost when the state last measured
Market daily rate, center, school age (2022 study)
$39.67
2022
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Statewide mean daily price of full-time center care for a school-age child (6-12 years), 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study.
From the 2022 Market Rate Study — the LAST market survey of Colorado child care prices: a federally approved cost-based alternative methodology replaced the market survey effective October 1, 2024 (stated by CDEC's own page and by the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report), so this series ends at 2022 by the state's own design and no newer market price should be expected. Statewide mean daily rate for full-time care, QRIS Level 3 (the study's 50th-percentile tier), weighted by licensed slots per county.
Where it came from Brodsky Research and Consulting, for the Colorado Department of Human Services 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study (June 2022)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
THE LAST TRUE MARKET SURVEY. CDEC's alternate-methodology page and the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report both state that a federally approved cost-based methodology replaced the market rate survey effective October 1, 2024 — so no newer market price exists and none should be expected. CONTRADICTS ITSELF on two of seven statewide Level-3 cells: the executive summary's "2022 Price" box prints Table 9's 2021 column for center 18-36 mos. and center 36 mos.-6 yrs.; those two cells are held PENDING(under_reconciliation), see MRS_CONTRADICTION. Resolved from the CDEC landing page's own link (cdec.colorado.gov answers 403 to non-browser fetchers; a browser user-agent cleared it, measured 2026-08-21). Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: af1b0094e2c7d359…, 2,011,605 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › What care cost when the state last measured
Market daily rate, family home, 0-24 months (2022 study)
$49.04
2022
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Statewide mean daily price of full-time family-child-care-home care for a child 0-24 months, 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study.
From the 2022 Market Rate Study — the LAST market survey of Colorado child care prices: a federally approved cost-based alternative methodology replaced the market survey effective October 1, 2024 (stated by CDEC's own page and by the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report), so this series ends at 2022 by the state's own design and no newer market price should be expected. Statewide mean daily rate for full-time care, QRIS Level 3 (the study's 50th-percentile tier), weighted by licensed slots per county.
Where it came from Brodsky Research and Consulting, for the Colorado Department of Human Services 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study (June 2022)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
THE LAST TRUE MARKET SURVEY. CDEC's alternate-methodology page and the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report both state that a federally approved cost-based methodology replaced the market rate survey effective October 1, 2024 — so no newer market price exists and none should be expected. CONTRADICTS ITSELF on two of seven statewide Level-3 cells: the executive summary's "2022 Price" box prints Table 9's 2021 column for center 18-36 mos. and center 36 mos.-6 yrs.; those two cells are held PENDING(under_reconciliation), see MRS_CONTRADICTION. Resolved from the CDEC landing page's own link (cdec.colorado.gov answers 403 to non-browser fetchers; a browser user-agent cleared it, measured 2026-08-21). Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: af1b0094e2c7d359…, 2,011,605 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › What care cost when the state last measured
Market daily rate, family home, 24 months-6 years (2022 study)
$46.04
2022
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Statewide mean daily price of full-time family-child-care-home care for a child 24 months to 6 years, 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study.
From the 2022 Market Rate Study — the LAST market survey of Colorado child care prices: a federally approved cost-based alternative methodology replaced the market survey effective October 1, 2024 (stated by CDEC's own page and by the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report), so this series ends at 2022 by the state's own design and no newer market price should be expected. Statewide mean daily rate for full-time care, QRIS Level 3 (the study's 50th-percentile tier), weighted by licensed slots per county.
Where it came from Brodsky Research and Consulting, for the Colorado Department of Human Services 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study (June 2022)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
THE LAST TRUE MARKET SURVEY. CDEC's alternate-methodology page and the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report both state that a federally approved cost-based methodology replaced the market rate survey effective October 1, 2024 — so no newer market price exists and none should be expected. CONTRADICTS ITSELF on two of seven statewide Level-3 cells: the executive summary's "2022 Price" box prints Table 9's 2021 column for center 18-36 mos. and center 36 mos.-6 yrs.; those two cells are held PENDING(under_reconciliation), see MRS_CONTRADICTION. Resolved from the CDEC landing page's own link (cdec.colorado.gov answers 403 to non-browser fetchers; a browser user-agent cleared it, measured 2026-08-21). Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: af1b0094e2c7d359…, 2,011,605 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › What care cost when the state last measured
Market daily rate, family home, school age (2022 study)
$38.60
2022
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Statewide mean daily price of full-time family-child-care-home care for a school-age child (6-12 years), 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study.
From the 2022 Market Rate Study — the LAST market survey of Colorado child care prices: a federally approved cost-based alternative methodology replaced the market survey effective October 1, 2024 (stated by CDEC's own page and by the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report), so this series ends at 2022 by the state's own design and no newer market price should be expected. Statewide mean daily rate for full-time care, QRIS Level 3 (the study's 50th-percentile tier), weighted by licensed slots per county.
Where it came from Brodsky Research and Consulting, for the Colorado Department of Human Services 2022 Colorado Child Care Market Rate Study (June 2022)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
THE LAST TRUE MARKET SURVEY. CDEC's alternate-methodology page and the CCCAP FY 2024-25 annual report both state that a federally approved cost-based methodology replaced the market rate survey effective October 1, 2024 — so no newer market price exists and none should be expected. CONTRADICTS ITSELF on two of seven statewide Level-3 cells: the executive summary's "2022 Price" box prints Table 9's 2021 column for center 18-36 mos. and center 36 mos.-6 yrs.; those two cells are held PENDING(under_reconciliation), see MRS_CONTRADICTION. Resolved from the CDEC landing page's own link (cdec.colorado.gov answers 403 to non-browser fetchers; a browser user-agent cleared it, measured 2026-08-21). Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: af1b0094e2c7d359…, 2,011,605 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Universal Preschool
Early childhood › Universal Preschool
Children funded by Universal Preschool
43,398
PY 2024-25
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Unique children funded by Colorado Universal Preschool in the year before kindergarten during the program year — 68.2% of the estimated eligible four-year-old population in PY 2024-25.
CDEC Universal Preschool annual report. The count is of unique children; the report's award-type counts are "highest award received" and are never multiplied into money, on the report's own warning.
How this figure was reached 43,398 of an estimated 63,662 eligible four-year-olds (68.2%, State Demography Office estimate). Reconciled across four printings in the report; Figure 2's bar mislabels its own total as 62,662, off by exactly 1,000 from its own segments, and is not repeated.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Early Childhood Colorado Universal Preschool Program Year 2024-25 Annual Report (January 2026)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
CONTRADICTS ITSELF TWICE: Figure 2's bar total (62,662) disagrees with its own two segments and with two other tables (63,662, off by exactly 1,000), and Figure 13's 30-Hour cell ($92,506,199) leaves its rows $54,000 short of its own printed total while Appendix I prints $92,560,199 and reconciles exactly. Both pinned and guarded in the ingest module; neither defective figure is republished. The report's own footnote warns award-type counts are "highest award received" and cannot be multiplied into expenditures — honored: nothing is derived from award counts. Also prints "In PY 2024-24" where it means 2024-25 — the publisher's typo, kept verbatim in the pinned quote. Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: c21347f0ac9e43d1…, 9,490,157 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › Universal Preschool
Universal Preschool appropriation
$344.0 million
FY 2024-25
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts The legislature's appropriation for the Universal Preschool program: Preschool Cash Funds (the Proposition EE nicotine tax) plus General Fund.
Published at the report's own precision — it prints "$344 million" ($197.7M Preschool Cash Funds + $146.3M General Fund, which reconcile exactly at tenths of a million); no dollar-exact appropriation is invented from a rounded document. An APPROPRIATION, a different quantity from the money distributed to providers beside it.
How this figure was reached As printed: $344 million, combining $197.7 million Preschool Cash Funds (Proposition EE nicotine tax) with $146.3 million General Fund — the components reconcile exactly at the report's tenth-of-a-million precision, and that precision is the publisher's, not a rounding of a dollar-exact figure.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Early Childhood Colorado Universal Preschool Program Year 2024-25 Annual Report (January 2026)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
CONTRADICTS ITSELF TWICE: Figure 2's bar total (62,662) disagrees with its own two segments and with two other tables (63,662, off by exactly 1,000), and Figure 13's 30-Hour cell ($92,506,199) leaves its rows $54,000 short of its own printed total while Appendix I prints $92,560,199 and reconciles exactly. Both pinned and guarded in the ingest module; neither defective figure is republished. The report's own footnote warns award-type counts are "highest award received" and cannot be multiplied into expenditures — honored: nothing is derived from award counts. Also prints "In PY 2024-24" where it means 2024-25 — the publisher's typo, kept verbatim in the pinned quote. Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: c21347f0ac9e43d1…, 9,490,157 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › Universal Preschool
Universal Preschool payments to providers
$276.8 million
PY 2024-25
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Money distributed to preschool providers during the program year — a different quantity from the appropriation.
Printed twice in the CDEC annual report; Appendix I's columns sum to it exactly. Figure 13's 30-Hour cell prints $54,000 less than the appendix's same column and leaves Figure 13's own rows short of this total — the defective cell is pinned in the ingest lib and not republished.
How this figure was reached Printed twice ($276,814,126); Appendix I's three payment columns sum to it exactly. Figure 13's 30-Hour cell prints $54,000 less than Appendix I's same column, leaving Figure 13's rows short of this total — that cell is not republished. A DISTRIBUTION, not the appropriation printed beside it.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Early Childhood Colorado Universal Preschool Program Year 2024-25 Annual Report (January 2026)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
CONTRADICTS ITSELF TWICE: Figure 2's bar total (62,662) disagrees with its own two segments and with two other tables (63,662, off by exactly 1,000), and Figure 13's 30-Hour cell ($92,506,199) leaves its rows $54,000 short of its own printed total while Appendix I prints $92,560,199 and reconciles exactly. Both pinned and guarded in the ingest module; neither defective figure is republished. The report's own footnote warns award-type counts are "highest award received" and cannot be multiplied into expenditures — honored: nothing is derived from award counts. Also prints "In PY 2024-24" where it means 2024-25 — the publisher's typo, kept verbatim in the pinned quote. Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: c21347f0ac9e43d1…, 9,490,157 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Child care assistance
What this counts Unduplicated children who used the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program at any point in the state fiscal year.
CDEC's statutory annual report to the JBC, Table 10 and its own key highlights (the -8.4% decrease into FY 2024-25 recomputes from the two published years). Basis: includes Child Welfare CCCAP only from SFY 2023-24 (series break seeded — earlier years are a narrower count and are not published); FY 2024-25 excludes over-13s, which the report bounds at fewer than 16 individuals, below the printed precision.
How this figure was reached The report's printed 8.4% decrease recomputes exactly from its own two years (30,124 -> 27,598). This year excludes over-13s; the report bounds them at fewer than 16 individuals, below the printed precision.
What this cannot be compared to Starting in SFY 2023-24 the count includes Child Welfare CCCAP cases; earlier years count only low-income and TANF CCCAP, so the rise into 2023-24 is a basis change, not growth. Years before 2023-24 are not published here and must not be added without this break. Where it came from Colorado Department of Early Childhood CCCAP Annual Report FY 2024-25 (letter to the JBC, November 1, 2025, per C.R.S. § 26.5-4-114)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
The statutory annual report. The -8.4% decrease recomputes from its own Table 10 (30,124 -> 27,598). Two basis notes travel with the series: Child Welfare CCCAP included only from SFY 2023-24 (the series here starts there — CO_CCCAP_SERIES_BREAKS), and FY 2024-25 excludes over-13s, bounded by the report's own "fewer than 16 individuals." Waitlist and freeze are the publisher's own two words for two different mechanisms and are never merged. Its section (j)(IV) independently corroborates that the 2022 Market Rate Study was the last one. Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 8ca78c8f8ac2f4fd…, 722,200 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › Child care assistance
Counties with a CCCAP waitlist
5
As of 2025-10-01
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Counties operating a CCCAP waitlist — in the report's own definition, still accepting and processing full applications and serving families from the waitlist as budget allows.
A WAITLIST IS NOT A FREEZE and the two counts are never merged: the report defines both, and a freeze county serves nobody until the freeze lifts. The report's per-county counts of children on waitlists "may over-count" (not unduplicated, by its own caveat) and are not published.
How this figure was reached "As of October 1, 2025, five counties are on a waitlist and 19 counties are on a freeze." A waitlist county still accepts and processes full applications and serves families as budget allows — a different mechanism from a freeze, and never merged with it.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Early Childhood CCCAP Annual Report FY 2024-25 (letter to the JBC, November 1, 2025, per C.R.S. § 26.5-4-114)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
The statutory annual report. The -8.4% decrease recomputes from its own Table 10 (30,124 -> 27,598). Two basis notes travel with the series: Child Welfare CCCAP included only from SFY 2023-24 (the series here starts there — CO_CCCAP_SERIES_BREAKS), and FY 2024-25 excludes over-13s, bounded by the report's own "fewer than 16 individuals." Waitlist and freeze are the publisher's own two words for two different mechanisms and are never merged. Its section (j)(IV) independently corroborates that the 2022 Market Rate Study was the last one. Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 8ca78c8f8ac2f4fd…, 722,200 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Early childhood › Child care assistance
Counties with a CCCAP enrollment freeze
19
As of 2025-10-01
FACT transcribed
Link to this measure
What this counts Counties operating a CCCAP enrollment freeze — in the report's own definition, taking abbreviated applications and serving no new families until the freeze is lifted.
A FREEZE IS NOT A WAITLIST and the two counts are never merged: waitlist counties still serve families as budget allows. Child Welfare Child Care cases bypass both, per the report.
How this figure was reached "As of October 1, 2025, five counties are on a waitlist and 19 counties are on a freeze." A freeze county takes abbreviated applications and serves no new families until the freeze lifts — a different mechanism from a waitlist, and never merged with it.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Early Childhood CCCAP Annual Report FY 2024-25 (letter to the JBC, November 1, 2025, per C.R.S. § 26.5-4-114)
Open the publisher’s page ↗ · archived copy ↗
The statutory annual report. The -8.4% decrease recomputes from its own Table 10 (30,124 -> 27,598). Two basis notes travel with the series: Child Welfare CCCAP included only from SFY 2023-24 (the series here starts there — CO_CCCAP_SERIES_BREAKS), and FY 2024-25 excludes over-13s, bounded by the report's own "fewer than 16 individuals." Waitlist and freeze are the publisher's own two words for two different mechanisms and are never merged. Its section (j)(IV) independently corroborates that the 2022 Market Rate Study was the last one. Fetched and hashed 2026-08-21.
Checked against this exact file: 8ca78c8f8ac2f4fd…, 722,200 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The price trend nobody serves a machine
Early childhood › The price trend nobody serves a machine
Median child care price by county (US DOL, 2008-2022)
Not published
2008-2022
PENDING
The publisher has not put it out.
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts County-level median child care prices, 2008-2022, from the US Department of Labor Women's Bureau's National Database of Childcare Prices — the only county-by-county price trend in existence.
NOT YET INGESTED: dol.gov defeats unattended fetching (see the dol_ndcp source note for the measured behavior); a later ship reads it in a real browser.
How this figure was reached County-level median child care prices 2008-2022 exist at the US DOL Women's Bureau and would put a time axis under the prices published here, but dol.gov defeats unattended fetching (see the source note for the measured behavior). To be read in a real browser in a later ship.
Where it came from US Department of Labor, Women's Bureau National Database of Childcare Prices (county-level medians, 2008-2022)
Open the source document ↗
NOT INGESTED — cataloged for a later ship. The only county-by-county child care price TREND in existence: median prices by county, provider type and age group, 2008-2022, which would put a time axis under the point-in-time prices published here. This publisher's site refuses automated requests, so no unattended read can be trusted against it (measured 2026-08-21). Seeds co-childcare-price-county-median as PENDING(not_yet_ingested); read it in a real browser when picking it up.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Cost of living
What it costs to live here, from the federal statistical agencies that measure it.
The price level
What this counts BEA Regional Price Parity for Colorado, all items, expressed as a percentage of the overall national price level (US = 100 in every year by construction). 103.052 in 2024 means Colorado prices run about 3% above the national average. This is the one series on the page built by its publisher to compare price LEVELS across places; every other series here describes Colorado against its own past.
From BEA's own keyless flat file (SARPP.zip), reconciled every run against the file's U.S. = 100 rows and the Feb 19, 2026 release's printed 2024 extremes. BEA revises the full 2008-2023 span each release — latest reconciling vintage wins.
How this figure was reached US = 100 in every year by construction. BEA revises 2008-2023 with each annual release.
Where it came from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Price Parities by state (SARPP), all items, 2008-2024 — BEA regional flat file
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The publisher's own machine route, keyless — the BEA API needs a registered key and none was registered. SARPP_STATE_2008_2024.csv inside the zip states its own release in its footer ("Last updated: February 19, 2026-- new statistics for 2024; revised statistics for 2008-2023"), and every run reconciles the file against that release's printed 2024 extremes (CA 110.7 / HI 110.0 / NJ 108.8 highest; AR 86.9 / MS 87.0 / IA 87.8 / OK 87.8 lowest) before quoting Colorado's 103.052. US = 100 by construction, asserted in every year. BEA revises the full 2008-2023 span each release — latest reconciling vintage wins. FRED republishes this series as CORPPALL (fredgraph.csv works headlessly while FRED's HTML 403s scripted clients — probed 2026-08-21); deliberately NOT used while the publisher's own route answers. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (17) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Inflation, Denver beside the nation
Cost of living › Inflation, Denver beside the nation
Consumer prices, Denver metro (CPI-U)
349.209
Jul 2026
FACT
Link to this measure
What this counts CPI-U all items for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, not seasonally adjusted (BLS series CUURS48BSA0), 1982-84 = 100. Published BIMONTHLY — odd months only — where the U.S. series beside it is monthly. A CPI measures change over time in one place: BLS's own guidance is that area indexes can never say which place is more expensive, so this series is only ever read against its own past or against the U.S. series as two rates of change over one identical window. The cross-place LEVEL comparison on this page is the BEA RPP.
Keyless BLS public API v2, one POST per run; cadence closure (every odd month, no gaps, no even-month rows) asserted before anything is built. NSA levels are never revised by BLS.
Where it came from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI-U all items, not seasonally adjusted — Denver-Aurora-Lakewood (CUURS48BSA0) and U.S. city average (CUUR0000SA0), public API v2
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Keyless POST, verified 2026-08-21. The unregistered tier caps a query at 10 years and 25 series with a daily query limit, so this module asks for one window and refuses a window wider than 10 years rather than silently truncating. The Denver series is BIMONTHLY — odd months only (Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sep, Nov) — while the U.S. series is monthly; the cadence difference is stated on every surface that draws them together, and any cumulative-change pair is computed at a month BOTH series publish. The U.S. series carries October 2025 as "-" with the publisher's own footnote, "Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations" — the shutdown month, published here as PENDING with that footnote verbatim and declared in EXPECT both ways. NSA index levels are never revised by BLS, so the Jan 2019 and Jul 2026 pins are permanent facts. BLS's own guidance: a CPI area index measures change over time in one place and can never say which place is more expensive — that comparison belongs to the RPP. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (46) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Cost of living › Inflation, Denver beside the nation
Consumer prices, U.S. city average (CPI-U)
334.98
Aug 2026
FACT
Link to this measure
What this counts CPI-U all items, U.S. city average, not seasonally adjusted (BLS series CUUR0000SA0), 1982-84 = 100, monthly. A NATIONAL REFERENCE series: it exists here only as the comparison line beside the Denver index, the same standing the U.S. crime-rate and graduation lines have.
Same request as the Denver series, so the two cannot sit on different retrievals. Monthly where Denver is bimonthly — the cadence difference is stated wherever both are drawn. October 2025 is the publisher's own gap (the 2025 lapse in appropriations) and renders as PENDING, never interpolated.
Where it came from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI-U all items, not seasonally adjusted — Denver-Aurora-Lakewood (CUURS48BSA0) and U.S. city average (CUUR0000SA0), public API v2
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Keyless POST, verified 2026-08-21. The unregistered tier caps a query at 10 years and 25 series with a daily query limit, so this module asks for one window and refuses a window wider than 10 years rather than silently truncating. The Denver series is BIMONTHLY — odd months only (Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sep, Nov) — while the U.S. series is monthly; the cadence difference is stated on every surface that draws them together, and any cumulative-change pair is computed at a month BOTH series publish. The U.S. series carries October 2025 as "-" with the publisher's own footnote, "Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations" — the shutdown month, published here as PENDING with that footnote verbatim and declared in EXPECT both ways. NSA index levels are never revised by BLS, so the Jan 2019 and Jul 2026 pins are permanent facts. BLS's own guidance: a CPI area index measures change over time in one place and can never say which place is more expensive — that comparison belongs to the RPP. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (92) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Cost of living › Inflation, Denver beside the nation
Consumer prices, Denver metro — change since Jan 2019
33.8%
Jan 2019 – Jul 2026
CALC
Link to this measure
What this counts Cumulative change in the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CPI-U (all items, NSA) from January 2019 to the latest published bimonthly point. Derived from the two published index values; the formula is registered and shown.
Recomputed each run at the latest month both the Denver and U.S. series publish.
How this figure was reached 349.209 (Jul 2026) / 260.942 (Jan 2019) − 1 = +33.8%. Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CPI-U all items, not seasonally adjusted. Endpoints are months both the Denver and U.S. series publish, so this figure and the one beside it cover one identical window. A CPI compares a place to its own past — the two changes may be compared, the two index levels may not.
Where it came from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI-U all items, not seasonally adjusted — Denver-Aurora-Lakewood (CUURS48BSA0) and U.S. city average (CUUR0000SA0), public API v2
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Keyless POST, verified 2026-08-21. The unregistered tier caps a query at 10 years and 25 series with a daily query limit, so this module asks for one window and refuses a window wider than 10 years rather than silently truncating. The Denver series is BIMONTHLY — odd months only (Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sep, Nov) — while the U.S. series is monthly; the cadence difference is stated on every surface that draws them together, and any cumulative-change pair is computed at a month BOTH series publish. The U.S. series carries October 2025 as "-" with the publisher's own footnote, "Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations" — the shutdown month, published here as PENDING with that footnote verbatim and declared in EXPECT both ways. NSA index levels are never revised by BLS, so the Jan 2019 and Jul 2026 pins are permanent facts. BLS's own guidance: a CPI area index measures change over time in one place and can never say which place is more expensive — that comparison belongs to the RPP. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Cost of living › Inflation, Denver beside the nation
Consumer prices, U.S. — change since Jan 2019
32.7%
Jan 2019 – Jul 2026
CALC
Link to this measure
What this counts Cumulative change in the U.S. city-average CPI-U (all items, NSA) over the identical window as the Denver figure beside it, ending at Denver's latest bimonthly point. A national reference figure.
Same request, same window, same formula as the Denver change.
How this figure was reached 333.918 (Jul 2026) / 251.712 (Jan 2019) − 1 = +32.7%. U.S. city average CPI-U all items, not seasonally adjusted. Endpoints are months both the Denver and U.S. series publish, so this figure and the one beside it cover one identical window. A CPI compares a place to its own past — the two changes may be compared, the two index levels may not.
Where it came from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI-U all items, not seasonally adjusted — Denver-Aurora-Lakewood (CUURS48BSA0) and U.S. city average (CUUR0000SA0), public API v2
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Keyless POST, verified 2026-08-21. The unregistered tier caps a query at 10 years and 25 series with a daily query limit, so this module asks for one window and refuses a window wider than 10 years rather than silently truncating. The Denver series is BIMONTHLY — odd months only (Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sep, Nov) — while the U.S. series is monthly; the cadence difference is stated on every surface that draws them together, and any cumulative-change pair is computed at a month BOTH series publish. The U.S. series carries October 2025 as "-" with the publisher's own footnote, "Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations" — the shutdown month, published here as PENDING with that footnote verbatim and declared in EXPECT both ways. NSA index levels are never revised by BLS, so the Jan 2019 and Jul 2026 pins are permanent facts. BLS's own guidance: a CPI area index measures change over time in one place and can never say which place is more expensive — that comparison belongs to the RPP. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
House prices
What this counts FHFA all-transactions house price index for Colorado, quarterly, not seasonally adjusted, 1975Q1 forward. Each year is shown at the publisher's own FIRST-QUARTER value — a published figure, not an annual average we would have to derive. Colorado indexes from its own 1980Q1 = 100, so an index level never compares across states; the series describes Colorado against its own past. The median home VALUE beside it (ACS B25077) is a level in dollars on a 5-year window — a different measure on a different basis, never spliced with this one.
From FHFA's open quarterly CSV (headerless; state, year, quarter, index). The download prints no change column, so reconciliation is the coverage shape — 51 jurisdictions, contiguous Colorado quarters — plus frozen value pins. FHFA re-estimates history each release; the latest reconciling vintage wins.
How this figure was reached The publisher's own first-quarter NSA index value, standing for the year by the named Q1 rule.
Where it came from Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, all-transactions, state, quarterly, not seasonally adjusted (hpi_at_state.csv)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
A headerless four-column CSV (state, year, quarter, index NSA), 51 jurisdictions, Colorado 1975Q1 forward — 206 quarters as of 2026Q2 (853.19; 2026Q1 is 854.32 and 2019Q1 is 565.62). The download prints no year-over-year column, so reconciliation is the coverage shape (51 jurisdictions, contiguous Colorado quarters, four numeric fields per row) plus frozen pins. FHFA re-estimates history each quarterly release, so a pin firing on a revision is the design: the run stops, a person re-reads the file, and updating EXPECT records the new vintage. Each state indexes from its own 1980Q1 = 100, so index LEVELS never compare across states. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (52) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Cumulative change in the FHFA all-transactions index for Colorado from 2019 Q1 to the latest first-quarter value. Derived from two published index points; the formula is registered and shown. It measures price change on Colorado homes against Colorado's own past — it is not a rank and not a cross-state comparison.
Recomputed each run from the same file as the index series.
How this figure was reached 854.32 (2026 Q1) / 565.62 (2019 Q1) − 1 = +51%. Both endpoints are the publisher's own quarterly NSA index values.
Where it came from Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, all-transactions, state, quarterly, not seasonally adjusted (hpi_at_state.csv)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
A headerless four-column CSV (state, year, quarter, index NSA), 51 jurisdictions, Colorado 1975Q1 forward — 206 quarters as of 2026Q2 (853.19; 2026Q1 is 854.32 and 2019Q1 is 565.62). The download prints no year-over-year column, so reconciliation is the coverage shape (51 jurisdictions, contiguous Colorado quarters, four numeric fields per row) plus frozen pins. FHFA re-estimates history each quarterly release, so a pin firing on a revision is the design: the run stops, a person re-reads the file, and updating EXPECT records the new vintage. Each state indexes from its own 1980Q1 = 100, so index LEVELS never compare across states. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Cost of living › House prices
House price index, United States (FHFA all-transactions)
712.2
2026 Q1
FACT
Link to this measure
What this counts FHFA all-transactions house price index for the United States, quarterly, not seasonally adjusted, 1975Q1 forward, shown at each year's first quarter on the same rule as the Colorado series. It comes from FHFA's national file, a SEPARATE download from the state file — the state file carries 51 jurisdictions and no national row. The national series indexes from 1980Q1 = 100, the same base quarter as Colorado's, and that shared base is what allows the two to sit on one axis; it is measured on every run. Read together the pair says how each has moved against its OWN 1980 level — it does not say a home costs more in one place than the other, which is a level in dollars this index never carries.
FHFA hpi_at_us_and_census.csv, the USA rows; nine Census divisions in the same file are not read.
How this figure was reached The publisher's own first-quarter NSA index value, standing for the year by the named Q1 rule.
Where it came from Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, all-transactions, U.S. and Census divisions, quarterly, not seasonally adjusted (hpi_at_us_and_census.csv)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The national series is a SEPARATE file, and that was measured rather than assumed: the state download carries 51 jurisdictions and NO national row, so a comparison built from it alone would have had nothing to compare against. This URL was taken from FHFA's own datasets page rather than derived from the state file's path. Same headerless four-column shape (region, year, quarter, index NSA); ten region codes — nine Census divisions (DV_*) plus USA — of which only USA is read, because a division is neither Colorado nor the nation. USA runs 1975Q1 forward, 206 quarters as of 2026Q2 (719.87; 2026Q1 is 712.20 and 2019Q1 is 426.90). BOTH files index from 1980Q1 = 100 and that is asserted every run: it is the only thing that lets the Colorado and national lines share an axis, and a rebase would leave them looking comparable while silently ceasing to be. The pair says how each moved against its OWN 1980 level; it never says a home costs more in one place, which is a dollar level this index does not carry. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (52) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Cost of living › House prices
House prices, United States — change since 2019 Q1
66.8%
2019 Q1 – 2026 Q1
CALC
Link to this measure
What this counts Cumulative change in the FHFA all-transactions index for the United States from 2019 Q1 to the latest first-quarter value, on exactly the arithmetic used for Colorado. A percent change IS comparable across the two where an index level is not, because each is measured against its own starting point.
Recomputed each run from the same file as the national index series.
How this figure was reached 712.2 (2026 Q1) / 426.9 (2019 Q1) − 1 = +66.8%. Both endpoints are the publisher's own quarterly NSA index values, on the same formula as the Colorado figure.
Where it came from Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, all-transactions, U.S. and Census divisions, quarterly, not seasonally adjusted (hpi_at_us_and_census.csv)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The national series is a SEPARATE file, and that was measured rather than assumed: the state download carries 51 jurisdictions and NO national row, so a comparison built from it alone would have had nothing to compare against. This URL was taken from FHFA's own datasets page rather than derived from the state file's path. Same headerless four-column shape (region, year, quarter, index NSA); ten region codes — nine Census divisions (DV_*) plus USA — of which only USA is read, because a division is neither Colorado nor the nation. USA runs 1975Q1 forward, 206 quarters as of 2026Q2 (719.87; 2026Q1 is 712.20 and 2019Q1 is 426.90). BOTH files index from 1980Q1 = 100 and that is asserted every run: it is the only thing that lets the Colorado and national lines share an axis, and a rebase would leave them looking comparable while silently ceasing to be. The pair says how each moved against its OWN 1980 level; it never says a home costs more in one place, which is a dollar level this index does not carry. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Rent
What this counts Median gross rent (contract rent plus estimated utilities) for renter-occupied housing in Colorado, Census ACS 1-year table B25064. ACS 1-year estimate: one calendar year of survey responses, statewide. The median home VALUE published beside it (table B25077) is a 5-year 2020-2024 estimate — a different product on a different window, never differenced or ratioed against a single-year rent. 2020 is a gap: the Census published no standard 1-year estimates for that year, and the series says so rather than interpolating.
Keyless data.census.gov table API, one request per year; each response must identify itself by year and table before it is read. Margins of error carried as structured fields on every year. api.census.gov without a key answers HTTP 200 with an "Invalid Key" page and is never used.
How this figure was reached ±$15 margin of error at the Census Bureau's 90 percent confidence level. ACS 1-year estimate: one calendar year of survey responses, statewide. The median home VALUE published beside it (table B25077) is a 5-year 2020-2024 estimate — a different product on a different window, never differenced or ratioed against a single-year rent.
Where it came from U.S. Census Bureau ACS 1-year, table B25064 — median gross rent, Colorado (data.census.gov table API)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The data.census.gov table API is keyless and each response embeds the api.census.gov URI it proxied. api.census.gov WITHOUT a key is the standing trap — it 302s to a missing_key page and serves an HTTP 200 "Invalid Key" HTML body — so it is never called here, and no key was registered. One request per year, 2015-2024. NO 2020 TABLE EXISTS: the API answers 400 "There is no table with the ID: ACSDT1Y2020.B25064" because the Census published no standard 1-year estimates for 2020 (pandemic collection disruption); that year is a declared gap, never a fetch failure and never interpolated. 1-year deliberately: rent is a statewide number, and the house vintage rule reserves the 5-year product for areas smaller than a state — the median home VALUE beside this figure (B25077, via the ingest module) is a 5-year 2020-2024 estimate, and the basis difference is named on every rent observation. Margins of error carried on every year. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Median gross rent (contract rent plus estimated utilities) for renter-occupied housing in the United States, Census ACS 1-year table B25064 — the same table, product and vintage as the Colorado figure, which is what allows the two to be read side by side. 2020 is the same declared gap for the same reason.
Keyless data.census.gov table API at the national geography (0100000US). The response names its own GEO_ID and NAME and both are asserted, because a geography parameter accepted and silently ignored answers 200 and looks exactly like a correct read.
How this figure was reached ±$3 margin of error at the Census Bureau's 90 percent confidence level. National ACS 1-year estimate, the same product and window as the Colorado figure beside it.
Where it came from U.S. Census Bureau ACS 1-year, table B25064 — median gross rent, United States (data.census.gov table API)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The same table, product and vintage as the Colorado read, at the national geography — which is what licenses showing the two together. Every caveat on the Colorado entry applies unchanged, including the 2020 gap (no standard 1-year estimates that year) and the api.census.gov keyless trap. One extra check lives here: the response embeds its own GEO_ID and NAME ("0100000US" / "United States") and BOTH are asserted, because a geography parameter that is accepted and then silently ignored answers HTTP 200 and is indistinguishable from a correct read. 2024: $1,487 ±$3, against Colorado's $1,822 ±$15. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Business climate
Cost of living › Business climate
CNBC Top States for Business: Colorado's overall rank
25of 50
2026
FACT
Link to this measure
What this counts Where CNBC placed Colorado among 50 states in its 2026 America's Top States for Business study, Overall category, 1 = best. This is a fact about CNBC's ranking, not a measurement of Colorado. The overall rank is the sum of all ten categories, 2500 points available across 138 metrics. CNBC re-weights its categories every year from what states advertise about themselves, so a rank is not comparable across years without reading both years' methodologies.
Read from CNBC's Colorado page in a browser on 2026-08-21; the publisher refuses scripted clients.
How this figure was reached CNBC ranked Colorado 25 of 50 for Overall in 2026, against 11 in 2025. The overall rank is the sum of all ten categories, 2500 points available across 138 metrics. The 2026 study added permitting speed as a metric for the first time, so 2025 and 2026 are not like-for-like — CNBC states this itself. Read in a browser on 2026-08-21.
Where it came from CNBC America's Top States for Business 2026 — Colorado
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Read in a browser on 2026-08-21. This publisher refuses non-browser clients, so the figure did NOT come from an unattended fetch and this pipeline CANNOT re-verify it — a heartbeat run will not notice if it moves. That is a weakness these rows carry and other figures on this site do not. Measured the same day: cnbc.com answers an Akamai "Access Denied" page to a non-browser client at this exact URL. The page prints all ten categories with 2026 rank, 2025 rank and a letter grade; three are published here and the other seven are not, so they are not ingested. **THE WEIGHTING IS THE POINT.** CNBC re-weights its categories every year from what states themselves advertise, and in 2026 Cost of Living is worth 50 points of 2500 — 2%, the LOWEST of the ten. Infrastructure is the highest at 17.6%, and it is where Colorado fell furthest (11 to 32), which is what actually moved the overall rank. 2026 also added permitting speed as a metric for the first time, so the 2025-to-2026 comparison is not like-for-like — CNBC says so itself. "Lowest ever" is NOT published: it would need Colorado's rank in eighteen separate year-pages and CNBC ran no study in 2020.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Cost of living › Business climate
CNBC Top States for Business: Colorado's cost-of-living rank
49of 50
2026
FACT
Link to this measure
What this counts Where CNBC placed Colorado among 50 states in its 2026 America's Top States for Business study, Cost of Living category, 1 = best. This is a fact about CNBC's ranking, not a measurement of Colorado. CNBC weights this category at 2% of the total score in 2026. That is the LOWEST weight of the ten categories, so this rank contributes very little to the overall position — a fact that must travel with the figure. CNBC re-weights its categories every year from what states advertise about themselves, so a rank is not comparable across years without reading both years' methodologies.
Read from CNBC's Colorado page in a browser on 2026-08-21; the publisher refuses scripted clients.
How this figure was reached CNBC ranked Colorado 49 of 50 for Cost of Living in 2026, against 47 in 2025. CNBC weights this category at 2% of the total score in 2026. That is the LOWEST weight of the ten categories, so this rank contributes very little to the overall position — a fact that must travel with the figure. The 2026 study added permitting speed as a metric for the first time, so 2025 and 2026 are not like-for-like — CNBC states this itself. Read in a browser on 2026-08-21.
Where it came from CNBC America's Top States for Business 2026 — Colorado
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Read in a browser on 2026-08-21. This publisher refuses non-browser clients, so the figure did NOT come from an unattended fetch and this pipeline CANNOT re-verify it — a heartbeat run will not notice if it moves. That is a weakness these rows carry and other figures on this site do not. Measured the same day: cnbc.com answers an Akamai "Access Denied" page to a non-browser client at this exact URL. The page prints all ten categories with 2026 rank, 2025 rank and a letter grade; three are published here and the other seven are not, so they are not ingested. **THE WEIGHTING IS THE POINT.** CNBC re-weights its categories every year from what states themselves advertise, and in 2026 Cost of Living is worth 50 points of 2500 — 2%, the LOWEST of the ten. Infrastructure is the highest at 17.6%, and it is where Colorado fell furthest (11 to 32), which is what actually moved the overall rank. 2026 also added permitting speed as a metric for the first time, so the 2025-to-2026 comparison is not like-for-like — CNBC says so itself. "Lowest ever" is NOT published: it would need Colorado's rank in eighteen separate year-pages and CNBC ran no study in 2020.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Cost of living › Business climate
CNBC Top States for Business: Colorado's infrastructure rank
32of 50
2026
FACT
Link to this measure
What this counts Where CNBC placed Colorado among 50 states in its 2026 America's Top States for Business study, Infrastructure category, 1 = best. This is a fact about CNBC's ranking, not a measurement of Colorado. CNBC weights this category at 17.6% of the total score in 2026. That is the HIGHEST weight of the ten categories in 2026. CNBC re-weights its categories every year from what states advertise about themselves, so a rank is not comparable across years without reading both years' methodologies.
Read from CNBC's Colorado page in a browser on 2026-08-21; the publisher refuses scripted clients.
How this figure was reached CNBC ranked Colorado 32 of 50 for Infrastructure in 2026, against 11 in 2025. CNBC weights this category at 17.6% of the total score in 2026. That is the HIGHEST weight of the ten categories in 2026. The 2026 study added permitting speed as a metric for the first time, so 2025 and 2026 are not like-for-like — CNBC states this itself. Read in a browser on 2026-08-21.
Where it came from CNBC America's Top States for Business 2026 — Colorado
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Read in a browser on 2026-08-21. This publisher refuses non-browser clients, so the figure did NOT come from an unattended fetch and this pipeline CANNOT re-verify it — a heartbeat run will not notice if it moves. That is a weakness these rows carry and other figures on this site do not. Measured the same day: cnbc.com answers an Akamai "Access Denied" page to a non-browser client at this exact URL. The page prints all ten categories with 2026 rank, 2025 rank and a letter grade; three are published here and the other seven are not, so they are not ingested. **THE WEIGHTING IS THE POINT.** CNBC re-weights its categories every year from what states themselves advertise, and in 2026 Cost of Living is worth 50 points of 2500 — 2%, the LOWEST of the ten. Infrastructure is the highest at 17.6%, and it is where Colorado fell furthest (11 to 32), which is what actually moved the overall rank. 2026 also added permitting speed as a metric for the first time, so the 2025-to-2026 comparison is not like-for-like — CNBC says so itself. "Lowest ever" is NOT published: it would need Colorado's rank in eighteen separate year-pages and CNBC ran no study in 2020.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Cost of living › Business climate
Tax Foundation State Tax Competitiveness Index: Colorado's overall rank
33of 50
2026
FACT
Link to this measure
What this counts Where the Tax Foundation placed Colorado among 50 states in its 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index, 1 = most competitive. A fact about the Tax Foundation's index, not a measurement of Colorado. The index scores tax STRUCTURE rather than tax level, so a low-rate state can rank poorly on structure and a high-rate one well. NOTE THE DEPENDENCE: the Tax Foundation is a listed source in CNBC's own methodology, so the two rankings published beside each other here are not independent reads.
Read from the Tax Foundation's Colorado index page in a browser on 2026-08-21.
How this figure was reached The Tax Foundation ranked Colorado 33 of 50 overall in its 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index, against 32 the prior year. Its components that year: corporate 20, individual income 21, sales 39, property 34, unemployment insurance 40 — read but not published, so not ingested. Read in a browser on 2026-08-21.
Where it came from Tax Foundation 2026 State Tax Competitiveness Index — Colorado
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Read in a browser on 2026-08-21. This host does not block scripted clients the way CNBC does, but its ranking table renders client-side, so it is read the same way. Colorado is 33rd overall, down one place, with components: corporate 20 (down 10), individual income 21 (down 4), sales 39 (down 1), property 34 (up 1), unemployment insurance 40 (down 1). Only the overall rank is published here, so only it is ingested. **THE TWO RANKINGS ON THIS PAGE ARE NOT INDEPENDENT.** Tax Foundation is a listed source in CNBC's own 2026 methodology, feeding its Cost of Doing Business category. Presenting them as two separate corroborating reads would overstate how much agreement there is.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Bills
What the state said its own bills would cost, before it voted on them.
How much of the legislature is read
What this counts Colorado bills from the 2016 session onward whose fiscal notes have been read from the publisher's own PDFs. Colorado writes a note for every bill and concurrent resolution — there is no dollar threshold and no meaningful exemption list — so this is the whole legislature, not a filtered set.
Sessions before 2016 are PENDING, not absent: notes exist for every bill since 1989 on the legacy CLICS host, which answers at 200 and is not yet read.
How this figure was reached A fiscal note is a forecast at a version, not a cost. Every figure behind this count is what Legislative Council Staff estimated on a stated date about a stated version of a bill, and the comparison is the bill's FIRST note against its LATEST AVAILABLE one — not against a final note, because 45 of 206 sampled bills never got one. First and last are decided by the date each note prints about itself, never by which file it was cached in; a pair no signal can put in order is excluded rather than given a direction.
Where it came from Colorado General Assembly, Legislative Council Staff Fiscal notes for Colorado bills, 2016 sessions onward (leg.colorado.gov bill files)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law → · publisher’s page ↗
Required by Joint Rule 22 with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). HB 88-1329 created the process and HJR 89-1003 designated Legislative Council Staff, so notes exist for every bill since 1989. THERE IS NO DOLLAR THRESHOLD AND NO MEANINGFUL EXEMPTION LIST — every bill and concurrent resolution gets a note for its first committee of reference. (A widely repeated claim of a "$20,000 trigger" under "Joint Rule 24-1-105(1), CRS 2-3-403" is a summarizer error and that citation is false; it is recorded here so nobody re-derives it.) The note is REVISED as the bill is amended, so one bill carries up to seven of them and each is its own PDF at an opaque, non-derivable id. Bill pages are server-rendered and the fiscal-note table is in the initial HTML. Enumeration is POST /bills/bill-search carrying a cookie and the form's own authenticity_token — a bare GET returns a 220,173-byte form shell with zero bill links, which a prior research pass read as "JS-rendered, not scrapable". TRAPS, each measured 2026-08-15: field_sessions=<year> is accepted, returns 200, and is SILENTLY IGNORED (2010 and 2026 returned a byte-identical list of 2026 bills — the Urban Institute trap reproduced); ?_format=json returns HTML at 200; and a guessable PDF mirror at content.leg.colorado.gov serves real notes 2016-2025 and 404s for every 2026 form tested, so nothing is built on it. Control that makes a 200 meaningful: /bills/HB26-9999 is a true 404. 2016 is a hard boundary on this host (SB16-001 is 200, SB09-001 through SB15-001 are 404). Read 2026-08-15: 7,310 bills across 16 sessions, 17,630 note versions, 14,456 PDFs.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Bills whose fiscal note prints NO state fiscal impact table, because the state's own analysts found the bill has no state fiscal impact. This is a finding, not a gap — it is the largest single group in the corpus, and the note says so in prose.
Counted separately from every other outcome. Folding these into an "unreadable" count would report a third of the Colorado statute book as broken when the publisher was being perfectly clear.
How this figure was reached Read from the bill's FIRST note, ordered by the date each note prints about itself. The publisher's own sentence is carried with each bill.
Where it came from Colorado General Assembly, Legislative Council Staff Fiscal notes for Colorado bills, 2016 sessions onward (leg.colorado.gov bill files)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law → · publisher’s page ↗
Required by Joint Rule 22 with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). HB 88-1329 created the process and HJR 89-1003 designated Legislative Council Staff, so notes exist for every bill since 1989. THERE IS NO DOLLAR THRESHOLD AND NO MEANINGFUL EXEMPTION LIST — every bill and concurrent resolution gets a note for its first committee of reference. (A widely repeated claim of a "$20,000 trigger" under "Joint Rule 24-1-105(1), CRS 2-3-403" is a summarizer error and that citation is false; it is recorded here so nobody re-derives it.) The note is REVISED as the bill is amended, so one bill carries up to seven of them and each is its own PDF at an opaque, non-derivable id. Bill pages are server-rendered and the fiscal-note table is in the initial HTML. Enumeration is POST /bills/bill-search carrying a cookie and the form's own authenticity_token — a bare GET returns a 220,173-byte form shell with zero bill links, which a prior research pass read as "JS-rendered, not scrapable". TRAPS, each measured 2026-08-15: field_sessions=<year> is accepted, returns 200, and is SILENTLY IGNORED (2010 and 2026 returned a byte-identical list of 2026 bills — the Urban Institute trap reproduced); ?_format=json returns HTML at 200; and a guessable PDF mirror at content.leg.colorado.gov serves real notes 2016-2025 and 404s for every 2026 form tested, so nothing is built on it. Control that makes a 200 meaningful: /bills/HB26-9999 is a true 404. 2016 is a hard boundary on this host (SB16-001 is 200, SB09-001 through SB15-001 are 404). Read 2026-08-15: 7,310 bills across 16 sessions, 17,630 note versions, 14,456 PDFs.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Bills whose fiscal note prints only Conditional State Fiscal Impacts — figures for a condition that may not hold. Counted on their own and never read as the bill's estimate, because a conditional is a different claim from a forecast.
Refused by caption. These are not counted as bills with no fiscal impact, which is where they would otherwise sit: one of them requires $98,836 of appropriations.
How this figure was reached Detected from the publisher's own table caption, not from the year or the bill.
Where it came from Colorado General Assembly, Legislative Council Staff Fiscal notes for Colorado bills, 2016 sessions onward (leg.colorado.gov bill files)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law → · publisher’s page ↗
Required by Joint Rule 22 with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). HB 88-1329 created the process and HJR 89-1003 designated Legislative Council Staff, so notes exist for every bill since 1989. THERE IS NO DOLLAR THRESHOLD AND NO MEANINGFUL EXEMPTION LIST — every bill and concurrent resolution gets a note for its first committee of reference. (A widely repeated claim of a "$20,000 trigger" under "Joint Rule 24-1-105(1), CRS 2-3-403" is a summarizer error and that citation is false; it is recorded here so nobody re-derives it.) The note is REVISED as the bill is amended, so one bill carries up to seven of them and each is its own PDF at an opaque, non-derivable id. Bill pages are server-rendered and the fiscal-note table is in the initial HTML. Enumeration is POST /bills/bill-search carrying a cookie and the form's own authenticity_token — a bare GET returns a 220,173-byte form shell with zero bill links, which a prior research pass read as "JS-rendered, not scrapable". TRAPS, each measured 2026-08-15: field_sessions=<year> is accepted, returns 200, and is SILENTLY IGNORED (2010 and 2026 returned a byte-identical list of 2026 bills — the Urban Institute trap reproduced); ?_format=json returns HTML at 200; and a guessable PDF mirror at content.leg.colorado.gov serves real notes 2016-2025 and 404s for every 2026 form tested, so nothing is built on it. Control that makes a 200 meaningful: /bills/HB26-9999 is a true 404. 2016 is a hard boundary on this host (SB16-001 is 200, SB09-001 through SB15-001 are 404). Read 2026-08-15: 7,310 bills across 16 sessions, 17,630 note versions, 14,456 PDFs.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What happened to the estimates
What this counts Bills whose estimated state expenditures were the same in the last available fiscal note as in the first. The most common thing that happens to a Colorado bill's price tag is nothing.
Of 3675 bills where both the first and the last note carry a readable budget-year figure. A bill whose first note is a sentence rather than a figure is NOT counted here — the two are different kinds of statement and are never subtracted from one another.
How this figure was reached A fiscal note is a forecast at a version, not a cost. Every figure behind this count is what Legislative Council Staff estimated on a stated date about a stated version of a bill, and the comparison is the bill's FIRST note against its LATEST AVAILABLE one — not against a final note, because 45 of 206 sampled bills never got one. First and last are decided by the date each note prints about itself, never by which file it was cached in; a pair no signal can put in order is excluded rather than given a direction.
Where it came from Colorado General Assembly, Legislative Council Staff Fiscal notes for Colorado bills, 2016 sessions onward (leg.colorado.gov bill files)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law → · publisher’s page ↗
Required by Joint Rule 22 with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). HB 88-1329 created the process and HJR 89-1003 designated Legislative Council Staff, so notes exist for every bill since 1989. THERE IS NO DOLLAR THRESHOLD AND NO MEANINGFUL EXEMPTION LIST — every bill and concurrent resolution gets a note for its first committee of reference. (A widely repeated claim of a "$20,000 trigger" under "Joint Rule 24-1-105(1), CRS 2-3-403" is a summarizer error and that citation is false; it is recorded here so nobody re-derives it.) The note is REVISED as the bill is amended, so one bill carries up to seven of them and each is its own PDF at an opaque, non-derivable id. Bill pages are server-rendered and the fiscal-note table is in the initial HTML. Enumeration is POST /bills/bill-search carrying a cookie and the form's own authenticity_token — a bare GET returns a 220,173-byte form shell with zero bill links, which a prior research pass read as "JS-rendered, not scrapable". TRAPS, each measured 2026-08-15: field_sessions=<year> is accepted, returns 200, and is SILENTLY IGNORED (2010 and 2026 returned a byte-identical list of 2026 bills — the Urban Institute trap reproduced); ?_format=json returns HTML at 200; and a guessable PDF mirror at content.leg.colorado.gov serves real notes 2016-2025 and 404s for every 2026 form tested, so nothing is built on it. Control that makes a 200 meaningful: /bills/HB26-9999 is a true 404. 2016 is a hard boundary on this host (SB16-001 is 200, SB09-001 through SB15-001 are 404). Read 2026-08-15: 7,310 bills across 16 sessions, 17,630 note versions, 14,456 PDFs.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Bills whose estimated state expenditures were lower in the last available fiscal note than in the first, and still above zero. A bill amended down to exactly nothing is a different event and is counted on its own, so the two never overlap and no bill is counted twice.
Of 3675 comparable bills.
How this figure was reached A fiscal note is a forecast at a version, not a cost. Every figure behind this count is what Legislative Council Staff estimated on a stated date about a stated version of a bill, and the comparison is the bill's FIRST note against its LATEST AVAILABLE one — not against a final note, because 45 of 206 sampled bills never got one. First and last are decided by the date each note prints about itself, never by which file it was cached in; a pair no signal can put in order is excluded rather than given a direction.
Where it came from Colorado General Assembly, Legislative Council Staff Fiscal notes for Colorado bills, 2016 sessions onward (leg.colorado.gov bill files)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law → · publisher’s page ↗
Required by Joint Rule 22 with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). HB 88-1329 created the process and HJR 89-1003 designated Legislative Council Staff, so notes exist for every bill since 1989. THERE IS NO DOLLAR THRESHOLD AND NO MEANINGFUL EXEMPTION LIST — every bill and concurrent resolution gets a note for its first committee of reference. (A widely repeated claim of a "$20,000 trigger" under "Joint Rule 24-1-105(1), CRS 2-3-403" is a summarizer error and that citation is false; it is recorded here so nobody re-derives it.) The note is REVISED as the bill is amended, so one bill carries up to seven of them and each is its own PDF at an opaque, non-derivable id. Bill pages are server-rendered and the fiscal-note table is in the initial HTML. Enumeration is POST /bills/bill-search carrying a cookie and the form's own authenticity_token — a bare GET returns a 220,173-byte form shell with zero bill links, which a prior research pass read as "JS-rendered, not scrapable". TRAPS, each measured 2026-08-15: field_sessions=<year> is accepted, returns 200, and is SILENTLY IGNORED (2010 and 2026 returned a byte-identical list of 2026 bills — the Urban Institute trap reproduced); ?_format=json returns HTML at 200; and a guessable PDF mirror at content.leg.colorado.gov serves real notes 2016-2025 and 404s for every 2026 form tested, so nothing is built on it. Control that makes a 200 meaningful: /bills/HB26-9999 is a true 404. 2016 is a hard boundary on this host (SB16-001 is 200, SB09-001 through SB15-001 are 404). Read 2026-08-15: 7,310 bills across 16 sessions, 17,630 note versions, 14,456 PDFs.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Bills whose estimated state expenditures were higher in the last available fiscal note than in the first.
Of 3675 comparable bills.
How this figure was reached A fiscal note is a forecast at a version, not a cost. Every figure behind this count is what Legislative Council Staff estimated on a stated date about a stated version of a bill, and the comparison is the bill's FIRST note against its LATEST AVAILABLE one — not against a final note, because 45 of 206 sampled bills never got one. First and last are decided by the date each note prints about itself, never by which file it was cached in; a pair no signal can put in order is excluded rather than given a direction.
Where it came from Colorado General Assembly, Legislative Council Staff Fiscal notes for Colorado bills, 2016 sessions onward (leg.colorado.gov bill files)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law → · publisher’s page ↗
Required by Joint Rule 22 with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). HB 88-1329 created the process and HJR 89-1003 designated Legislative Council Staff, so notes exist for every bill since 1989. THERE IS NO DOLLAR THRESHOLD AND NO MEANINGFUL EXEMPTION LIST — every bill and concurrent resolution gets a note for its first committee of reference. (A widely repeated claim of a "$20,000 trigger" under "Joint Rule 24-1-105(1), CRS 2-3-403" is a summarizer error and that citation is false; it is recorded here so nobody re-derives it.) The note is REVISED as the bill is amended, so one bill carries up to seven of them and each is its own PDF at an opaque, non-derivable id. Bill pages are server-rendered and the fiscal-note table is in the initial HTML. Enumeration is POST /bills/bill-search carrying a cookie and the form's own authenticity_token — a bare GET returns a 220,173-byte form shell with zero bill links, which a prior research pass read as "JS-rendered, not scrapable". TRAPS, each measured 2026-08-15: field_sessions=<year> is accepted, returns 200, and is SILENTLY IGNORED (2010 and 2026 returned a byte-identical list of 2026 bills — the Urban Institute trap reproduced); ?_format=json returns HTML at 200; and a guessable PDF mirror at content.leg.colorado.gov serves real notes 2016-2025 and 404s for every 2026 form tested, so nothing is built on it. Control that makes a 200 meaningful: /bills/HB26-9999 is a true 404. 2016 is a hard boundary on this host (SB16-001 is 200, SB09-001 through SB15-001 are 404). Read 2026-08-15: 7,310 bills across 16 sessions, 17,630 note versions, 14,456 PDFs.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Bills that started with an estimated cost above zero and ended at exactly zero. After "nothing happened", this is the most common thing that happens to a Colorado bill's price tag: it is amended away entirely.
Of 3675 comparable bills. Counted apart from the bills whose estimate merely fell, so the four movement counts add up to the comparable set exactly and no bill is in two of them.
How this figure was reached A fiscal note is a forecast at a version, not a cost. Every figure behind this count is what Legislative Council Staff estimated on a stated date about a stated version of a bill, and the comparison is the bill's FIRST note against its LATEST AVAILABLE one — not against a final note, because 45 of 206 sampled bills never got one. First and last are decided by the date each note prints about itself, never by which file it was cached in; a pair no signal can put in order is excluded rather than given a direction.
Where it came from Colorado General Assembly, Legislative Council Staff Fiscal notes for Colorado bills, 2016 sessions onward (leg.colorado.gov bill files)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law → · publisher’s page ↗
Required by Joint Rule 22 with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). HB 88-1329 created the process and HJR 89-1003 designated Legislative Council Staff, so notes exist for every bill since 1989. THERE IS NO DOLLAR THRESHOLD AND NO MEANINGFUL EXEMPTION LIST — every bill and concurrent resolution gets a note for its first committee of reference. (A widely repeated claim of a "$20,000 trigger" under "Joint Rule 24-1-105(1), CRS 2-3-403" is a summarizer error and that citation is false; it is recorded here so nobody re-derives it.) The note is REVISED as the bill is amended, so one bill carries up to seven of them and each is its own PDF at an opaque, non-derivable id. Bill pages are server-rendered and the fiscal-note table is in the initial HTML. Enumeration is POST /bills/bill-search carrying a cookie and the form's own authenticity_token — a bare GET returns a 220,173-byte form shell with zero bill links, which a prior research pass read as "JS-rendered, not scrapable". TRAPS, each measured 2026-08-15: field_sessions=<year> is accepted, returns 200, and is SILENTLY IGNORED (2010 and 2026 returned a byte-identical list of 2026 bills — the Urban Institute trap reproduced); ?_format=json returns HTML at 200; and a guessable PDF mirror at content.leg.colorado.gov serves real notes 2016-2025 and 404s for every 2026 form tested, so nothing is built on it. Control that makes a 200 meaningful: /bills/HB26-9999 is a true 404. 2016 is a hard boundary on this host (SB16-001 is 200, SB09-001 through SB15-001 are 404). Read 2026-08-15: 7,310 bills across 16 sessions, 17,630 note versions, 14,456 PDFs.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What nobody publishes
What this counts NOT PUBLISHED. No Colorado source reports expenditure bill by bill. A fiscal note estimates what a bill will cost and the Long Bill appropriates money to departments; neither reports what was spent because of one bill. So the question a reader most wants answered — did it end up costing more than they said? — cannot be answered here, and no number is offered in place of one.
A refusal, not a gap in the ingest. Estimated against appropriated IS answerable from the note's own phrase ("requires" against "requires and includes"); estimated against SPENT is not answerable from any Colorado publisher.
How this figure was reached Pinned from day one so the absence cannot later be filled with an approximation.
Where it came from Colorado General Assembly, Legislative Council Staff Fiscal notes for Colorado bills, 2016 sessions onward (leg.colorado.gov bill files)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law → · publisher’s page ↗
Required by Joint Rule 22 with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). HB 88-1329 created the process and HJR 89-1003 designated Legislative Council Staff, so notes exist for every bill since 1989. THERE IS NO DOLLAR THRESHOLD AND NO MEANINGFUL EXEMPTION LIST — every bill and concurrent resolution gets a note for its first committee of reference. (A widely repeated claim of a "$20,000 trigger" under "Joint Rule 24-1-105(1), CRS 2-3-403" is a summarizer error and that citation is false; it is recorded here so nobody re-derives it.) The note is REVISED as the bill is amended, so one bill carries up to seven of them and each is its own PDF at an opaque, non-derivable id. Bill pages are server-rendered and the fiscal-note table is in the initial HTML. Enumeration is POST /bills/bill-search carrying a cookie and the form's own authenticity_token — a bare GET returns a 220,173-byte form shell with zero bill links, which a prior research pass read as "JS-rendered, not scrapable". TRAPS, each measured 2026-08-15: field_sessions=<year> is accepted, returns 200, and is SILENTLY IGNORED (2010 and 2026 returned a byte-identical list of 2026 bills — the Urban Institute trap reproduced); ?_format=json returns HTML at 200; and a guessable PDF mirror at content.leg.colorado.gov serves real notes 2016-2025 and 404s for every 2026 form tested, so nothing is built on it. Control that makes a 200 meaningful: /bills/HB26-9999 is a true 404. 2016 is a hard boundary on this host (SB16-001 is 200, SB09-001 through SB15-001 are 404). Read 2026-08-15: 7,310 bills across 16 sessions, 17,630 note versions, 14,456 PDFs.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts REFUSED. The dollar aggregate is dominated by single bills in every sample measured: on the 2026 sample it moved +83.2% across 200 bills and +3.8% with the single largest swing removed. A total like that is a statement about one bill wearing the clothes of a statement about the legislature. The per-bill direction is stable and is what gets published instead.
Refused deliberately and permanently, not pending better data. Summing these estimates is arithmetic that would pass every check and answer a question nobody asked.
How this figure was reached The sign of this aggregate has already flipped once on a parse bug — it read −46% before the column-ruler fix and +83% after. A figure that fragile is not a finding.
Where it came from Colorado General Assembly, Legislative Council Staff Fiscal notes for Colorado bills, 2016 sessions onward (leg.colorado.gov bill files)
Open this bill on Before It’s Law → · publisher’s page ↗
Required by Joint Rule 22 with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). HB 88-1329 created the process and HJR 89-1003 designated Legislative Council Staff, so notes exist for every bill since 1989. THERE IS NO DOLLAR THRESHOLD AND NO MEANINGFUL EXEMPTION LIST — every bill and concurrent resolution gets a note for its first committee of reference. (A widely repeated claim of a "$20,000 trigger" under "Joint Rule 24-1-105(1), CRS 2-3-403" is a summarizer error and that citation is false; it is recorded here so nobody re-derives it.) The note is REVISED as the bill is amended, so one bill carries up to seven of them and each is its own PDF at an opaque, non-derivable id. Bill pages are server-rendered and the fiscal-note table is in the initial HTML. Enumeration is POST /bills/bill-search carrying a cookie and the form's own authenticity_token — a bare GET returns a 220,173-byte form shell with zero bill links, which a prior research pass read as "JS-rendered, not scrapable". TRAPS, each measured 2026-08-15: field_sessions=<year> is accepted, returns 200, and is SILENTLY IGNORED (2010 and 2026 returned a byte-identical list of 2026 bills — the Urban Institute trap reproduced); ?_format=json returns HTML at 200; and a guessable PDF mirror at content.leg.colorado.gov serves real notes 2016-2025 and 404s for every 2026 form tested, so nothing is built on it. Control that makes a 200 meaningful: /bills/HB26-9999 is a true 404. 2016 is a hard boundary on this host (SB16-001 is 200, SB09-001 through SB15-001 are 404). Read 2026-08-15: 7,310 bills across 16 sessions, 17,630 note versions, 14,456 PDFs.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Jobs
The wage floors and payroll rules the law sets, and who is out of work.
Work and unemployment
What this counts Share of the Colorado labor force unemployed, seasonally adjusted.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly series for Colorado, seasonally adjusted (LASST080000000000003), grade A. This site reads it from the Bureau. Until September 25, 2026 it read the state portal's copy, which stopped at May 2026. The newest month is preliminary until the Bureau revises it a month later, and each figure says so.
How this figure was reached Preliminary. The Bureau of Labor Statistics marks this month preliminary and revises it when the next month is published.
Where it came from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics — unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, Colorado (LASST080000000000003), public API
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The federal statistical agency publishes this monthly series, and this site reads it directly. On September 25, 2026 it replaced the state portal's copy, which stopped at May 2026. By then the state and the Bureau had both published June, July and August. The Bureau marks its newest month preliminary and revises it a month later. Every figure it marks that way says so here. The Bureau also revises the whole series each March, and this site then shows the new figures.
Checked against this exact file: 87267bcb05ce00d8…, 7,994 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (92) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Share of the U.S. labor force unemployed, seasonally adjusted (CPS series LNS14000000). A NATIONAL REFERENCE series: it exists to sit beside the Colorado rate. The Colorado figure is the federal LAUS state series, read from BLS — LAUS is benchmarked to the CPS, and the two are quoted together at the same month, never at different months.
Keyless BLS public API v2, one POST per run; cadence closure (every month from 2019, publisher-declared gaps as rows) asserted before anything is built. October 2025 is the publisher's own shutdown gap and renders as PENDING. CPS SA estimates are revised annually; latest reconciling vintage wins.
Where it came from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey — unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, United States (LNS14000000), public API v2
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Keyless POST on the same BLS v2 route and 10-year window discipline as the CPI pair, verified 2026-08-21. A NATIONAL REFERENCE series: it exists to sit beside the Colorado rate, which is the federal Local Area Unemployment Statistics state series (state basis) — LAUS is benchmarked to the CPS, and the basis difference is stated wherever the two are quoted together. October 2025 is the publisher's own gap ("Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations.") and renders as PENDING, never interpolated. CPS seasonally adjusted estimates are revised annually (seasonal factors and population controls; the publisher's own footnote on January 2026 says so), so the pins are vintage pins — a pin firing on a revision stops the run for a person, and updating EXPECT records the vintage. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (92) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The federal minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act — the FLOOR beneath every state's own minimum, not a national average, and no surface may call it one. States may set higher minimums (Colorado does); employers must comply with both.
Read from the publisher's own sentence on dol.gov ("The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009."), with the amount and effective date both asserted every run, so a moved floor stops the run for a person.
How this figure was reached The publisher's own sentence: "The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009." Unchanged since July 24, 2009. A floor, not an average.
Where it came from U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division Minimum Wage — the federal minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act
Open the source document ↗
The publisher's own page, probed clean 2026-08-21 (honest 404 on an invented route). The figure is read from the page's own sentence — "The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009." — and both the amount and the effective date are asserted against EXPECT, so a moved floor or a reworded page stops the run for a person rather than publishing a guess. THIS IS A FLOOR, NOT AN AVERAGE: no surface may call it the national average, because the two are different claims. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The wage floor
What this counts The statewide minimum wage, by calendar year, 2016 forward. Set by Article XVIII, Section 15 of the Colorado Constitution ($8.31 in 2016 under Amendment 70's schedule, then adjusted annually by the CPI-U for Colorado once the schedule reached $12.00 in 2020). Each year's figure is read from the document CDLE adopted it in — the year's own wage order, COMPS order, or PAY CALC order — never from a convenience table. Local minimums (Denver's, shown beside this) may sit higher; the higher wage governs where both apply.
One adopting document per year, sha256-pinned; 2022-2023 from CDLE's own INFO #1 because the COMPS Order defers dollar values to PAY CALC orders CDLE no longer links; 2027 from the Division's announcement, whose two stated percentages are recomputed from this series every run. The full-minus-tipped $3.02 identity is asserted in every year.
How this figure was reached Announced by the Division ahead of the 2027 PAY CALC order (not yet adopted when read); the release's own +3.6% and +41.5% claims recompute exactly from this series.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Labor Standards and Statistics Press release: Colorado minimum wage will increase to $15.71/hour in 2027
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The 2027 values ($15.71, tipped $12.69) are the Division's own announcement; the 2027 PAY CALC order was not yet adopted when read. The release states two derived claims — "a 3.6% increase from the current minimum wage of $15.16 and a 41.5% increase from the 2019 minimum wage of $11.10" — and both percentages are recomputed from the series every run, as is the release's statement of Denver's 2027 minimum ($19.84) against Denver's own page. Living page: pinned sentences plus fingerprint; cdle.colorado.gov 403s non-browser fetchers. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (12) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The minimum cash wage an employer must pay a tipped employee, by calendar year — always exactly $3.02/hour below the full minimum (the tip-credit cap in COMPS Order Rule 6.2.3), with tips required to make up at least the difference. Stated by CDLE in every year's adopting document except 2022, which is derived by the publisher's own $3.02 rule and labeled CALC.
Read from the same documents as the full minimum. In documents printing several dollar figures near the word "tipped", the value is bound by the $3.02 identity, never by position.
How this figure was reached Exactly $3.02 below the year's full minimum — the tip-credit cap, asserted in cents; announced ahead of the 2027 PAY CALC order.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Labor Standards and Statistics Press release: Colorado minimum wage will increase to $15.71/hour in 2027
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The 2027 values ($15.71, tipped $12.69) are the Division's own announcement; the 2027 PAY CALC order was not yet adopted when read. The release states two derived claims — "a 3.6% increase from the current minimum wage of $15.16 and a 41.5% increase from the 2019 minimum wage of $11.10" — and both percentages are recomputed from the series every run, as is the release's statement of Denver's 2027 minimum ($19.84) against Denver's own page. Living page: pinned sentences plus fingerprint; cdle.colorado.gov 403s non-browser fetchers. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (12) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The wage floor, Denver
What this counts Denver's citywide minimum wage, by calendar year, 2021 forward — a local ordinance floor above the state minimum, adjusted annually by CPI-W where the state uses CPI-U. Published from the Denver Auditor's own page, except 2023: the page misfiles its 2023 value under 2024, so that year is sourced to CDLE's own statement of Denver's 2023 minimum, and the misprint is asserted present on every run until Denver fixes it.
Living page, pinned sentences plus fingerprint. The page's history sentence and its schedule lines are checked against each other, and 2021-2023 are cross-checked against CDLE INFO #1; 2027 is cross-checked against CDLE's press release.
Where it came from Denver Auditor's Office, Denver Labor Citywide minimum wage — Denver Labor
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
KNOWN PUBLISHER DEFECT, pinned 2026-08-21: the page's own history sentence files $17.29 under 2024 (it is 2023), leaving 2023 absent and 2024 doubled. The module asserts the defect is still present, corroborates the misfiled value against CDLE INFO #1's "In 2023, the Denver minimum wage is $17.29", and publishes 2023 sourced to CDLE. If Denver fixes the sentence the run fails loudly and removing DENVER_DEFECT records the fix — a declaration cannot outlive its defect. Denver adjusts by CPI-W where the state uses CPI-U (the state's own release explains the difference). Living page: pinned sentences plus fingerprint. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What payroll law sets
What this counts The premium for Colorado's paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance program, as a share of employee wages: 0.88%, split 0.44% employer and 0.44% employee for employers of ten or more. Employers with nine or fewer employees remit only the employee half. The publisher's page states no year and no history, so this is one current-year figure, not a series.
From the FAMLI Division's employer page, pinned verbatim; the split is asserted to sum to the rate in integer basis points. The rate has moved before (0.9% through 2024, 0.88% from 2025), so the pin failing means the rate likely changed — re-read, then re-pin.
How this figure was reached Split 0.44% employer / 0.44% employee, asserted to sum to the rate. The publisher's small-employer rule, verbatim: "Businesses with nine or fewer employees should submit wage reports and send in 0.44% of their employees wages each quarter."
Where it came from Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, FAMLI Division FAMLI premiums — employer page, famli.colorado.gov
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
States the premium in one sentence, pinned verbatim: "The premiums are set to 0.88% of the employee's wage, with 0.44% paid by the employer and 0.44% paid by the employee." The halves are asserted to sum to the rate in basis points. The same page carries the small-employer rule (nine or fewer employees remit only the 0.44% employee share), which lives in the method note. The page states no year and no history — one current-year observation only, never a series invented from an undated page. Living page: fingerprint. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts The minimum salary at which an executive, administrative or professional employee may be treated as overtime-exempt under COMPS Order Rule 2.5.1, as the PAY CALC order's own "rounded annual equivalent" of its weekly figure ($1,111.23/week, $57,784/year in 2026). Published for the years whose adopted PAY CALC orders are linked by CDLE (2024 forward); earlier thresholds exist but their orders are unlinked, and a series is not extended from documents nobody has read.
The weekly and annual figures are two statements of one fact: weekly × 52, rounded to the dollar, must equal the printed annual, and the weekly figure is identified by that identity among the several per-week figures each order prints.
How this figure was reached The order's own "rounded annual equivalent" of $1111.23/week; weekly × 52 = $57783.96 rounds to the printed $57,784.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Labor Standards and Statistics Adopted PAY CALC Orders, 7 CCR 1103-14 — 2024, 2025, 2026 (plus the 2026 temporary order)
Open the source document ↗
The annually adopted rule that publishes the minimum wage, tipped wage and exempt-salary thresholds. THE 2026 TRAP: the adopted 2026 order (Dec 8, 2025) is effective February 1, 2026, and a TEMPORARY order adopted December 12, 2025 carries identical values effective January 1 — the temporary order is what makes the new wage legal in January, and both are read and asserted equal every run. The three orders print the wage row in three different column layouts, so the tipped wage and the EAP weekly salary are bound arithmetically (tipped by the $3.02 identity, EAP by weekly × 52 rounding to the printed annual equivalent), never by table position. Read 2026-08-21.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (3) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Pensions
What the state owes its retired public workers, and how much of it is paid for.
All five funds together
What this counts Unfunded actuarial accrued liability of the five Division Trust Funds, funding basis (actuarial value of assets, Board funding policy). NOT the GASB net pension liability, which PERA prints beside it for the same funds on the same date and which differs — see co-pera-npl-accounting-basis. Pension only; PERA’s health care trust funds are separate.
Read from PERA’s own Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, a PDF read as text. The report year comes from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line, never from the filename, which carries the year in some editions and not in others: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name and the 2025 report with one, and the upload path is the publication year in both. Every row reconciles against the publisher — assets plus unfunded equals liability, assets over liability reproduces the printed funded ratio, and the five Division Trust Funds sum to the aggregate PERA prints.
How this figure was reached Funding basis (actuarial value of assets, Board funding policy), aggregate of the five Division Trust Funds. PERA states this aggregate is "for informational purposes" and that each fund’s assets "cannot be used by another fund", so it is five separate trusts added together, not one pooled obligation — the School Division is 66.1% funded and the Judicial Division 90.3% on the same date. Pension only: PERA’s health care trust funds publish their own funded ratio (76.9% combined for 2025) and are not included. Read from the 2025 edition, https://content.copera.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2025-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report.pdf.
Where it came from Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association Colorado PERA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Open the source document ↗
PERA’s own audited annual report. Read for the funding-basis unfunded liability and funded ratio of the five Division Trust Funds. THE FILENAME IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE YEAR, AND IT INVERTS BETWEEN EDITIONS: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name under a 2025/06/ upload path, and the 2025 report is served WITH its year under 2026/06/. The upload path is the PUBLICATION year in both, one ahead of the report year. So neither edition’s filename generalizes to the other, and the year is read from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line instead, with every edition declared rather than constructed. The host answers an invented route with a real 404, so a 200 here means something; a "sign in" string in the body is an Employer Login link in the nav, not a gate.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Actuarial value of assets over actuarial accrued liability, five Division Trust Funds combined. PERA states this aggregate is "for informational purposes" because each fund’s assets "cannot be used by another fund" — it describes no actual fund, and the five it sums range from 66.1% to 91.2% on the same date.
Read from PERA’s own Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, a PDF read as text. The report year comes from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line, never from the filename, which carries the year in some editions and not in others: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name and the 2025 report with one, and the upload path is the publication year in both. Every row reconciles against the publisher — assets plus unfunded equals liability, assets over liability reproduces the printed funded ratio, and the five Division Trust Funds sum to the aggregate PERA prints.
How this figure was reached Funding basis (actuarial value of assets, Board funding policy), aggregate of the five Division Trust Funds. PERA states this aggregate is "for informational purposes" and that each fund’s assets "cannot be used by another fund", so it is five separate trusts added together, not one pooled obligation — the School Division is 66.1% funded and the Judicial Division 90.3% on the same date. Pension only: PERA’s health care trust funds publish their own funded ratio (76.9% combined for 2025) and are not included. Read from the 2025 edition, https://content.copera.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2025-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report.pdf.
Where it came from Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association Colorado PERA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Open the source document ↗
PERA’s own audited annual report. Read for the funding-basis unfunded liability and funded ratio of the five Division Trust Funds. THE FILENAME IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE YEAR, AND IT INVERTS BETWEEN EDITIONS: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name under a 2025/06/ upload path, and the 2025 report is served WITH its year under 2026/06/. The upload path is the PUBLICATION year in both, one ahead of the report year. So neither edition’s filename generalizes to the other, and the year is read from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line instead, with every edition declared rather than constructed. The host answers an invented route with a real 404, so a 200 here means something; a "sign in" string in the body is an Employer Login link in the nav, not a gate.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
The accounting basis
Pensions › The accounting basis
PERA net pension liability (accounting basis)
$24.19 billion
2025
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts GASB net pension liability, for accounting and financial reporting. A DIFFERENT QUANTITY from the funding-basis UAAL and not a revision of it: PERA publishes both, and their order reverses between years, so a series mixing them can show a rise where there was a fall.
Read from PERA’s own Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, a PDF read as text. The report year comes from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line, never from the filename, which carries the year in some editions and not in others: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name and the 2025 report with one, and the upload path is the publication year in both. Every row reconciles against the publisher — assets plus unfunded equals liability, assets over liability reproduces the printed funded ratio, and the five Division Trust Funds sum to the aggregate PERA prints.
How this figure was reached ACCOUNTING basis (GASB net pension liability), NOT the funding-basis UAAL published beside it. PERA prints both for the same funds on the same date: NPL $24.2B against UAAL $30.1B for 2025. The two are not interchangeable and their order reverses — at 31 Dec 2023 the NPL was $29.3B against a UAAL of $27.5B, so a series mixing them can show a rise where there was a fall. Emitted separately so neither basis is quietly preferred. The 2025 figure is read to the thousand from the audited Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability, whose five divisions sum to it exactly — not from the summary table that rounds it to one decimal place in billions. Read from the 2025 edition, https://content.copera.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2025-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report.pdf.
Where it came from Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association Colorado PERA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Open the source document ↗
PERA’s own audited annual report. Read for the funding-basis unfunded liability and funded ratio of the five Division Trust Funds. THE FILENAME IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE YEAR, AND IT INVERTS BETWEEN EDITIONS: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name under a 2025/06/ upload path, and the 2025 report is served WITH its year under 2026/06/. The upload path is the PUBLICATION year in both, one ahead of the report year. So neither edition’s filename generalizes to the other, and the year is read from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line instead, with every edition declared rather than constructed. The host answers an invented route with a real 404, so a 200 here means something; a "sign in" string in the body is an Employer Login link in the nav, not a gate.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (2) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Fund by fund
Pensions › Fund by fund
PERA funded ratio — State Division
66.3%
2025
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Funded ratio of the State Division Trust Fund on the funding basis. Published per division because the combined figure describes none of them and the assets cannot be moved between funds.
Read from PERA’s own Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, a PDF read as text. The report year comes from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line, never from the filename, which carries the year in some editions and not in others: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name and the 2025 report with one, and the upload path is the publication year in both. Every row reconciles against the publisher — assets plus unfunded equals liability, assets over liability reproduces the printed funded ratio, and the five Division Trust Funds sum to the aggregate PERA prints.
How this figure was reached State Division Trust Fund, funding basis. Published because the aggregate describes no actual fund: these five range from 66.1% to 91.2% on the same date, and their assets cannot be moved between them. Read from the 2025 edition, https://content.copera.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2025-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report.pdf.
Where it came from Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association Colorado PERA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Open the source document ↗
PERA’s own audited annual report. Read for the funding-basis unfunded liability and funded ratio of the five Division Trust Funds. THE FILENAME IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE YEAR, AND IT INVERTS BETWEEN EDITIONS: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name under a 2025/06/ upload path, and the 2025 report is served WITH its year under 2026/06/. The upload path is the PUBLICATION year in both, one ahead of the report year. So neither edition’s filename generalizes to the other, and the year is read from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line instead, with every edition declared rather than constructed. The host answers an invented route with a real 404, so a 200 here means something; a "sign in" string in the body is an Employer Login link in the nav, not a gate.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Funded ratio of the School Division Trust Fund on the funding basis. Published per division because the combined figure describes none of them and the assets cannot be moved between funds.
Read from PERA’s own Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, a PDF read as text. The report year comes from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line, never from the filename, which carries the year in some editions and not in others: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name and the 2025 report with one, and the upload path is the publication year in both. Every row reconciles against the publisher — assets plus unfunded equals liability, assets over liability reproduces the printed funded ratio, and the five Division Trust Funds sum to the aggregate PERA prints.
How this figure was reached School Division Trust Fund, funding basis. Published because the aggregate describes no actual fund: these five range from 66.1% to 91.2% on the same date, and their assets cannot be moved between them. Read from the 2025 edition, https://content.copera.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2025-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report.pdf.
Where it came from Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association Colorado PERA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Open the source document ↗
PERA’s own audited annual report. Read for the funding-basis unfunded liability and funded ratio of the five Division Trust Funds. THE FILENAME IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE YEAR, AND IT INVERTS BETWEEN EDITIONS: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name under a 2025/06/ upload path, and the 2025 report is served WITH its year under 2026/06/. The upload path is the PUBLICATION year in both, one ahead of the report year. So neither edition’s filename generalizes to the other, and the year is read from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line instead, with every edition declared rather than constructed. The host answers an invented route with a real 404, so a 200 here means something; a "sign in" string in the body is an Employer Login link in the nav, not a gate.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Pensions › Fund by fund
PERA funded ratio — Local Government Division
88.2%
2025
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Funded ratio of the Local Government Division Trust Fund on the funding basis. Published per division because the combined figure describes none of them and the assets cannot be moved between funds.
Read from PERA’s own Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, a PDF read as text. The report year comes from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line, never from the filename, which carries the year in some editions and not in others: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name and the 2025 report with one, and the upload path is the publication year in both. Every row reconciles against the publisher — assets plus unfunded equals liability, assets over liability reproduces the printed funded ratio, and the five Division Trust Funds sum to the aggregate PERA prints.
How this figure was reached Local Government Division Trust Fund, funding basis. Published because the aggregate describes no actual fund: these five range from 66.1% to 91.2% on the same date, and their assets cannot be moved between them. Read from the 2025 edition, https://content.copera.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2025-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report.pdf.
Where it came from Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association Colorado PERA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Open the source document ↗
PERA’s own audited annual report. Read for the funding-basis unfunded liability and funded ratio of the five Division Trust Funds. THE FILENAME IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE YEAR, AND IT INVERTS BETWEEN EDITIONS: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name under a 2025/06/ upload path, and the 2025 report is served WITH its year under 2026/06/. The upload path is the PUBLICATION year in both, one ahead of the report year. So neither edition’s filename generalizes to the other, and the year is read from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line instead, with every edition declared rather than constructed. The host answers an invented route with a real 404, so a 200 here means something; a "sign in" string in the body is an Employer Login link in the nav, not a gate.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Pensions › Fund by fund
PERA funded ratio — Judicial Division
90.3%
2025
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Funded ratio of the Judicial Division Trust Fund on the funding basis. Published per division because the combined figure describes none of them and the assets cannot be moved between funds.
Read from PERA’s own Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, a PDF read as text. The report year comes from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line, never from the filename, which carries the year in some editions and not in others: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name and the 2025 report with one, and the upload path is the publication year in both. Every row reconciles against the publisher — assets plus unfunded equals liability, assets over liability reproduces the printed funded ratio, and the five Division Trust Funds sum to the aggregate PERA prints.
How this figure was reached Judicial Division Trust Fund, funding basis. Published because the aggregate describes no actual fund: these five range from 66.1% to 91.2% on the same date, and their assets cannot be moved between them. Read from the 2025 edition, https://content.copera.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2025-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report.pdf.
Where it came from Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association Colorado PERA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Open the source document ↗
PERA’s own audited annual report. Read for the funding-basis unfunded liability and funded ratio of the five Division Trust Funds. THE FILENAME IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE YEAR, AND IT INVERTS BETWEEN EDITIONS: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name under a 2025/06/ upload path, and the 2025 report is served WITH its year under 2026/06/. The upload path is the PUBLICATION year in both, one ahead of the report year. So neither edition’s filename generalizes to the other, and the year is read from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line instead, with every edition declared rather than constructed. The host answers an invented route with a real 404, so a 200 here means something; a "sign in" string in the body is an Employer Login link in the nav, not a gate.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Pensions › Fund by fund
PERA funded ratio — DPS Division
89.3%
2025
FACT transcribed
This one is in the checked data but is not shown anywhere on the site yet.
Link to this measure
What this counts Funded ratio of the DPS Division Trust Fund on the funding basis. Published per division because the combined figure describes none of them and the assets cannot be moved between funds.
Read from PERA’s own Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, a PDF read as text. The report year comes from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line, never from the filename, which carries the year in some editions and not in others: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name and the 2025 report with one, and the upload path is the publication year in both. Every row reconciles against the publisher — assets plus unfunded equals liability, assets over liability reproduces the printed funded ratio, and the five Division Trust Funds sum to the aggregate PERA prints.
How this figure was reached DPS Division Trust Fund, funding basis. Published because the aggregate describes no actual fund: these five range from 66.1% to 91.2% on the same date, and their assets cannot be moved between them. Read from the 2025 edition, https://content.copera.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2025-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report.pdf.
Where it came from Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association Colorado PERA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Open the source document ↗
PERA’s own audited annual report. Read for the funding-basis unfunded liability and funded ratio of the five Division Trust Funds. THE FILENAME IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE YEAR, AND IT INVERTS BETWEEN EDITIONS: the 2024 report is served with no year in its name under a 2025/06/ upload path, and the 2025 report is served WITH its year under 2026/06/. The upload path is the PUBLICATION year in both, one ahead of the report year. So neither edition’s filename generalizes to the other, and the year is read from the document’s own "FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31" line instead, with every edition declared rather than constructed. The host answers an invented route with a real 404, so a 200 here means something; a "sign in" string in the body is an Employer Login link in the nav, not a gate.
Date not published by the source.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Prisons
What the prison system costs, and how many people are in it.
What it costs
What this counts Total-funds appropriation to the Department of Corrections for the fiscal year.
JBC appropriations documents; Long Bill + other legislation.
How this figure was reached Total funds, of which $1,086,028,946 General Fund. Taken from the "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table of the FY 2025-26 JBC Appropriations Report, whose own fund lines sum to its printed total. Total and fund composition come from the SAME document, so the row reconciles against a figure the publisher printed. The Corrections staff budget briefings are read as an independent cross-check and agree on the total for every year except the restated FY 2024-25. Annual operating appropriation — not spend-to-date.
What this cannot be compared to This figure is on the basis “annual appropriation”. A figure of the same name on another basis is a different thing, and the two must not be set against each other. Where it came from Joint Budget Committee Staff Appropriations Reports, FY 2020-21 through FY 2025-26
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The annual enacted-appropriations report. Each edition prints an "Operating Appropriations by Department and Fund Source" table for its own fiscal year AND the prior one, covering every department in the state — which is what makes a whole-of-government series possible rather than one department at a time. PARSED (read as text from the publisher's PDF) and reconciled three ways before any figure is published: each department's four fund lines must sum to its printed Total Funds, the departments must sum to the report's own printed statewide total on all five fund columns, and a fiscal year appearing in two editions is taken from the latest edition that satisfies both. Basis is OPERATING appropriations — capital construction and IT capital are separate sections of the same report and are excluded.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (7) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
How many people are held
What this counts End-of-month Department of Corrections incarcerated population per 100,000 Colorado residents.
CDOC end-of-month count over the Census resident population estimate for that calendar year. Months in a year with no published population estimate stay PENDING rather than borrowing an older one. Borrowing would bend the rate downward as the state grows, and that reads as an improvement that did not happen. The population used is the Census resident count, not the FBI's matched population. The FBI figure counts only residents covered by reporting agencies. That is the right basis for a same-basis crime comparison and the wrong one for a share of the whole population.
Where it came from U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program State population totals (Vintage 2019 and Vintage 2025)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Resident population by state and year, used as the denominator for the incarceration rate and for the state MVT ranking. Read from the OPEN FLAT FILES, which need no API key: api.census.gov requires one and shows an "Invalid Key" page instead of an error when it is absent or unactivated, which a simple check would mistake for success. Two vintages are needed because the estimates are rebased on each decennial census: Vintage 2019 supplies 2010-2019 and Vintage 2025 supplies 2020-2025. They do not overlap, so no vintage race is required — but the 2019/2020 boundary is a rebasing break, not a smooth series. MIRRORED 2026-08-10, SAME VINTAGE AND SAME DIRECTORY: NST-EST2025-ALLDATA.csv answers with a rejection page rather than data, and only that one file — the directory listing, the previous vintage, the county file and a sibling file in the same directory all serve normally. NST-EST2025-POPCHG2020-2025.csv carries the same POPESTIMATE2020..2025 columns this parser already looks for and reproduces every published figure unchanged — Colorado 2025 is 6,012,561 either way. It is a MIRROR, not a substitute: a later vintage would rebase every rate computed from this denominator and is never listed as a fallback.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (26) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Sentenced prisoners under Colorado state jurisdiction per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages, at December 31. BJS computes the rate.
A DIFFERENT measure from the monthly CDOC end-of-month count: sentenced prisoners at one December date, not everyone held at a month end. Never spliced onto that line. Its value is that every state is counted the same way, which is the only honest route to a decade — CDOC's own dashboard starts October 2024. The "age 18 or older" column in the same BJS table is a third measure and is never mixed in.
How this figure was reached Sentenced prisoners under Colorado state jurisdiction per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages, December 31 2023; BJS computes the rate, so no denominator is chosen here. Read from Prisoners in 2023 — Statistical Tables. Single-source for 2023: the release printing it does not overlap another. Only 2021 and 2022 are printed by two releases and cross-checked. A different measure from the CDOC end-of-month count and never spliced onto that line.
Where it came from Bureau of Justice Statistics National Prisoner Statistics — Prisoners in 2015 / 2017 / 2019 / 2021 / 2022 (revised) / 2023
Open the source document ↗
Imprisonment rate per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages, sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction, December 31, 2014-2023, every state on one basis. The only honest route to a decade: CDOC's own dashboard starts October 2024. A DIFFERENT measure from the monthly end-of-month count and never spliced onto that line; the "age 18 or older" column in the same table is a third measure and is never mixed in. Download URLs follow no single pattern (p23st.zip, p22st_rev.zip, 2021 only at a bare media ID, 2014-2019 PDF-only) — do not guess. Each release prints two years, but only the Statistical Tables era OVERLAPS: 2021 and 2022 are read from two publications each and must agree; the 2014-2019 biennial releases PARTITION their years, so eight of the ten have a single source and each observation says which it is. Read through the shared imprisonment-rate module, which Florida uses too.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts BJS's all-state imprisonment rate — the aggregate across state jurisdictions, EXCLUDING federal prisoners.
The right national comparator for a single state, because federal prisoners are not a state's doing. BJS also prints a "U.S. total" that includes them; that is a different number and is not used.
How this figure was reached BJS all-state imprisonment rate, December 31 2023 — excludes federal prisoners, who are not a state's doing. Read from Prisoners in 2023 — Statistical Tables. Single-source for 2023: the release printing it does not overlap another. Only 2021 and 2022 are printed by two releases and cross-checked.
Where it came from Bureau of Justice Statistics National Prisoner Statistics — Prisoners in 2015 / 2017 / 2019 / 2021 / 2022 (revised) / 2023
Open the source document ↗
Imprisonment rate per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages, sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction, December 31, 2014-2023, every state on one basis. The only honest route to a decade: CDOC's own dashboard starts October 2024. A DIFFERENT measure from the monthly end-of-month count and never spliced onto that line; the "age 18 or older" column in the same table is a third measure and is never mixed in. Download URLs follow no single pattern (p23st.zip, p22st_rev.zip, 2021 only at a bare media ID, 2014-2019 PDF-only) — do not guess. Each release prints two years, but only the Statistical Tables era OVERLAPS: 2021 and 2022 are read from two publications each and must agree; the 2014-2019 biennial releases PARTITION their years, so eight of the ten have a single source and each observation says which it is. Read through the shared imprisonment-rate module, which Florida uses too.
Date not published by the source.
Every period published (10) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What this counts Inmate Total in Colorado Department of Corrections facilities at the END OF THE MONTH — a point-in-time count. Not average daily population (ADP), which the monthly capacity PDF reports and which is a different measure.
CDOC Dashboard Measures (Tableau Public) CSV; male and female components are cross-checked against the published total.
Where it came from Colorado Department of Corrections CDOC Dashboard Measures — Population (Tableau Public)
Open the source document ↗
End-of-month inmate population. The monthly PDF is ADP (average daily population) and says in its own footer to use this dashboard for end-of-month figures, so the dashboard is the right source for a point-in-time count. Tableau Public serves the underlying data as CSV from <view>.csv?:showVizHome=no — the bare <view>.csv 404s. Landing page: https://cdoc.colorado.gov/about/data-and-reports/statistics (client-rendered; the monthly PDFs behind it are Google Drive links).
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Every period published (26) ✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
People
How many people the money serves, and what their homes are worth.
Population
What this counts U.S. Census Bureau resident population estimate for Colorado, July 1 of the estimate year.
From the keyless Census population-estimates flat files, the same figures already used as the denominator of the incarceration rate. Emitted as an observation so the per-resident column on the $100 receipt divides by a published, checkable number instead of an unsourced one.
How this figure was reached U.S. Census Bureau resident population estimate for Colorado, July 1 2025, Vintage 2025. The latest published estimate — the same figure the incarceration rate divides by, so the two per-resident figures on the dashboard cannot disagree.
Where it came from U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program State population totals (Vintage 2019 and Vintage 2025)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Resident population by state and year, used as the denominator for the incarceration rate and for the state MVT ranking. Read from the OPEN FLAT FILES, which need no API key: api.census.gov requires one and shows an "Invalid Key" page instead of an error when it is absent or unactivated, which a simple check would mistake for success. Two vintages are needed because the estimates are rebased on each decennial census: Vintage 2019 supplies 2010-2019 and Vintage 2025 supplies 2020-2025. They do not overlap, so no vintage race is required — but the 2019/2020 boundary is a rebasing break, not a smooth series. MIRRORED 2026-08-10, SAME VINTAGE AND SAME DIRECTORY: NST-EST2025-ALLDATA.csv answers with a rejection page rather than data, and only that one file — the directory listing, the previous vintage, the county file and a sibling file in the same directory all serve normally. NST-EST2025-POPCHG2020-2025.csv carries the same POPESTIMATE2020..2025 columns this parser already looks for and reproduces every published figure unchanged — Colorado 2025 is 6,012,561 either way. It is a MIRROR, not a substitute: a later vintage would rebase every rate computed from this denominator and is never listed as a fallback.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What homes are worth
What this counts Median value of owner-occupied homes in Colorado, Census ACS 2020-2024, 5-year (table B25077). DELIBERATELY the 5-year figure, not the 1-year: it is the fallback shown beside per-ZIP medians that exist only on the 5-year basis, and mixing vintages in one control would compare two different measures under one label. A 1-year statewide median exists and differs.
From the keyless table-based ACS summary file; the statewide row and every ZCTA row come from the same download. Frozen-expect checked on every run.
How this figure was reached A 5-year estimate describes the whole 2020-2024 window, not a single year.
Where it came from U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2020-2024 5-year, table B25077 — median value of owner-occupied housing units (table-based summary file)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
One pipe-delimited file, every geography in the country: the statewide row and all 530 Colorado ZCTAs come from the same download, so they cannot sit on different vintages. Keyless — api.census.gov serves the same figures behind a key that fails as an "Invalid Key" page rather than an error, and a neighboring www2 popest file has separately been found to answer with a rejection page rather than data, so the flat file is probed before it is trusted. ZCTA GEO_IDs use the 860Z200US prefix, not the API's 8600000US. Sentinels: -666666666 suppressed (57 of 530 in Colorado); 2000001 is a top-code meaning "$2,000,001 or more" (81655); 9999 is a bottom-code. 5-year deliberately: the 1-year product publishes no ZCTA rows, and the 5-year statewide median ($539,400) differs from the 1-year one, so the vintage is named wherever a figure appears. Read 2026-08-14.
Checked against this exact file: 89eb2153764a2330…, 18,496,426 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
What homes are worth, ZIP by ZIP
What this counts The median value of owner-occupied homes in each ZIP area this site can resolve — the figure that seeds the home-value default on the Follow Your Dollar calculator. Where the publisher suppresses an area's median, that is recorded and shown as such, never guessed at.
ZCTA medians exist only on the ACS 5-year basis; the vintage is named at every occurrence. Universe closed against the same relationship file that drives the page's ZIP-to-county crosswalk.
Every one of the 530 (473 published, 57 not) Where it came from U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2020-2024 5-year, table B25077 — median value of owner-occupied housing units (table-based summary file)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
One pipe-delimited file, every geography in the country: the statewide row and all 530 Colorado ZCTAs come from the same download, so they cannot sit on different vintages. Keyless — api.census.gov serves the same figures behind a key that fails as an "Invalid Key" page rather than an error, and a neighboring www2 popest file has separately been found to answer with a rejection page rather than data, so the flat file is probed before it is trusted. ZCTA GEO_IDs use the 860Z200US prefix, not the API's 8600000US. Sentinels: -666666666 suppressed (57 of 530 in Colorado); 2000001 is a top-code meaning "$2,000,001 or more" (81655); 9999 is a bottom-code. 5-year deliberately: the 1-year product publishes no ZCTA rows, and the 5-year statewide median ($539,400) differs from the 1-year one, so the vintage is named wherever a figure appears. Read 2026-08-14.
Checked against this exact file: 89eb2153764a2330…, 18,496,426 bytes
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record, row by row. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Local government
What this counts Count of special districts recorded on the DOLA register.
ALL districts on the register. Status codes are numeric and undocumented on the asset, so no active/inactive subset is claimed.
How this figure was reached Count of ALL districts on the DOLA register (3,813), reconciled against the per-status sum. Status codes are numeric and undocumented on the asset, so no active subset is claimed.
Where it came from Dept. of Local Affairs (via data.colorado.gov) All Special Districts in Colorado (7rar-v5z8)
Open the source document ↗
The registry of special districts — the layer of local government most taxpayers never see itemised. Published status codes (lgstatus_i) are numeric and undocumented on the asset, so the count published here is ALL districts on the register; no "active" subset is claimed.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Natural resources
What this counts Dams under state dam-safety jurisdiction whose physical status is Active.
DWR dam-safety register; the status split is published by DWR itself and reconciles to the total.
How this figure was reached 2,253 dams with physical_status "Active", of 2,737 on the jurisdictional register; the status groups sum exactly to the register total.
Where it came from DNR Division of Water Resources (via data.colorado.gov) DWR Dam Safety Jurisdictional Dam (mgjv-xmr5)
Open the source document ↗
Jurisdictional dams under state dam-safety regulation, with an explicit physical_status. DWR is the deepest machine-readable departmental holding in the state and the freshest.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Health
What this counts Health facilities on the CDPHE licensing and certification register.
CDPHE ArcGIS Hub, layer 0; reconciled against the per-county sum.
How this figure was reached 5,014 facilities on the CDPHE register, reconciled against the per-county grouped sum across 62 counties plus 2 records carrying no county, which the grouping drops and which are counted rather than ignored.
Where it came from Dept. of Public Health and Environment CDPHE Health Facilities (ArcGIS Hub)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
Licensed and certified health facilities. CDPHE publishes on its OWN ArcGIS Hub, a separate portal from data.colorado.gov, which is why a state-portal sweep missed the department entirely. The service root returns no count; the count must be requested from layer 0.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Licensing
What this counts Credentials in DORA's licensing record with a current status of Active, counted across every profession and occupation the department regulates.
Counted from the record-level Socrata feed; the per-status counts are re-derived and checked against the feed's own total record count on the same run.
How this figure was reached 608,655 of 1,611,185 credentials on DORA's register carry status "Active". Strict count: a further 3,704 carry a qualified active status (Active - Provisional 1,079, Active - Reentry License 2, Active - Refresher Course Only 7, Active - Restricted 280, Active - Telehealth ONLY 703, Active - With Conditions 1,633) and are deliberately EXCLUDED, so this figure understates the number of usable credentials by about 0.6%. A point-in-time snapshot of the register on the run date — the feed carries no effective date of its own, so it is labeled with the date we read it and nothing further is inferred about when it changed. Counts credentials, not people: one person may hold several.
Where it came from Dept. of Regulatory Agencies (via data.colorado.gov) Professional and Occupational Licenses in Colorado (Socrata dataset 7s5z-vewr)
Open the source document ↗ · publisher’s page ↗
The feed behind DORA's public License Lookup — every professional and occupational credential the department issues. Queryable through the same SODA API the CDPS crime extract uses, which had to be tested rather than assumed: the four TOPS expenditure datasets on this identical portal return 403 for the same request shape. IMPORTANT — the published feed is person-level (licensee name, city, ZIP). We query it in aggregate only and store only counts; no record-level row is fetched, cached or emitted, per the project rule against holding data about individuals.
Retrieved 2026-10-01.
✓ Sealed. Read from the checked data and re-derived against its own source record. Nothing here was worked out for you.
Read together
Claims that rest on several measures at once. Each one is reached from any of the measures it uses. Every figure in one is read out of the checked data, not typed.
Read together
Per-pupil funding has risen 39.7% since FY 2019-20. Colorado's graduation rate has risen from 75% in AYG 2012 to 85.6% in AYG 2025. The national average was 80% in AYG 2012 and 86.6% in AYG 2022, which is the last year published. The reader draws the conclusions. We deliver the record.
Link to this reading
What this cannot be read as CMAS test results are charted on the education page, with the federal NAEP check beside them — not on this dashboard. The funding series starts at FY 2019-20. Earlier years are not ingested yet. The new school finance formula (HB24-1448) phases in from FY 2025-26. That is a comparability break in the funding series. The graduation series is published by NCES up to the class of 2021-22 and by CDE after it. The two agree exactly at the overlap. The national series stops earlier than the state one because NCES publishes on a lag. That is a lag, not a fall. Every figure in it (6 read, 3 worked out)
Read together
The corrections appropriation has risen 19.2% since FY 2019-20. The number of people incarcerated per 100,000 residents has moved much less, because the population is growing underneath the count. Vehicle theft is the clearest movement on this page. Colorado had the highest rate in the nation in 2020, 2021, 2022, and ranked 3 of 47 in 2024. The rate is 492.9 per 100,000, down from a peak of 792.5 in 2022. The reader draws the conclusions. We deliver the record.
Link to this reading
What this cannot be read as The rank chart is drawn with 1st at the top, so a line moving up is a worse outcome. The incarceration rate stops at December 2025 because no 2026 population estimate is published. That is a blank, not a fall. The 2021 rank is against a third fewer states, because fewer met the reporting threshold that year. Every figure in it (5 read, 2 worked out)