Colorado · Fiscal notes
Bills and Laws
Updated Oct 12
What a fiscal note is
Colorado prices its own bills before it votes on them. A fiscal note is what the legislature's own nonpartisan staff estimated a bill would cost the state, written again each time the bill changes. This page has read the note on 7,078 of the 7,310 bills listed, at the first version of the estimate and at the last; the rest have no note in this record yet.
Every figure here is a forecast at a version, not a cost.
Find a bill
Type a bill number, or a word from the title. The boxes filter; they never answer — you pick the bill.
Press / from anywhere on this page to jump to the box. When your typing leaves exactly one bill, Enter opens it.
7,310 of 7,310 bills · showing the first 150 — narrow the list, or add more below
"Moved" is the distance between what the state first said a bill would cost and what it last said. A negative figure is a saving, not a mistake. A note books reduced spending as a negative expenditure, and the sign here is the publisher's own. "At introduction" is the earliest note in this cache and "Latest" the last one. The last one is often not a final note. A final note is not guaranteed, even for a bill that became law.
A fiscal note is a forecast at a version. It is not a cost. Every figure above carries the date it was written and the version it describes. What a bill actually cost is a different question, and Colorado does not publish the answer.
This is the one table on this site that needs JavaScript. Every other table here works without it. This one cannot: sending all 7,310 rows at once would make the page too large to load, so the search box, the filters, the sorting and all 16 sessions are put together in your browser.
The finding
Most price tags never move. The ones that do, mostly fall.
Comparing each bill's first estimate with its last needs both to carry a figure. 3,675 bills do. Here is what happened to them.
Of the 1,081 bills whose estimate moved at all, down beats up by about 2.1 to 1. The most common thing that happens to a Colorado bill's price tag is nothing. The second most common is that it is taken out of the bill.
2,213 bills had no state fiscal impact
Their first note prints no impact table, because the state's own analysts found the bill costs the state nothing, and the note says so. That is a finding, not a gap. It is the largest single group here, and it is counted on its own so no other total can absorb it.
512 bills were priced in words
Older notes often print a sentence where a figure would go — "Workload increase and potential cost increases." That is a real published finding. It is carried as the sentence the state wrote, labeled PENDING (qualitative), and it is never turned into a zero.
18 bills were priced only if something happens
Their only table is headed Conditional State Fiscal Impacts — figures stated for a condition that may not hold. A conditional is a different claim from a forecast. So these are kept apart from the bills with a figure and from the bills with none.
The record
What is here
Every bill gets a fiscal note. There is no dollar threshold, so a bill the state expects to cost nothing gets a note that says so.
232 of the 7,310 bills have no note in this cache at all. They are listed with that reason rather than dropped. A bill missing from a list of every bill is the one thing a reader cannot see.
The Outcome column starts in 2025
This page reads what happened to a bill out of the fiscal note. Only a note written after the bill was disposed of prints it. Where a bill in 2025 or 2026 has no such note, the page takes the ending from the bill history on the legislature's own page for that bill: the Governor's signature or veto, a committee voting to “postpone indefinitely”, or a floor vote that lost it. Nothing else. So 1,310 of the 7,310 bills here carry an outcome. Every one of them sits in a 2025 or 2026 session. The other 6,000 are marked Not stated. That is this page not having read it, not the state not having published it. The legislature prints every bill's disposition on the bill's own page, and every bill here links to that page. So the outcome filter narrows you to 2025 and 2026 as well.
What this page will not tell you
Three questions, and one of them has no answer anywhere
What a bill actually cost
No Colorado source reports spending bill by bill. A fiscal note estimates what a bill will cost. The Long Bill — the state's yearly spending act — gives money to departments. Neither says what was spent because of one bill. So the question a reader most wants answered cannot be answered, and no number is offered in its place.
What all these bills add up to
Refused, and not pending better data. A dollar total of these estimates is dominated by single bills in every sample measured. On one sample it moved +83.2% across 200 bills and +3.8% with the one 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. That is what is published instead.
Bills before 2016
PENDING Notes exist for every Colorado bill since 1989, on an older state system that still answers. It is recorded here so the gap is a known absence rather than a silent one. It has not been read yet.
There is no scorecard here and no party column. Adding up the estimated cost of the bills a member sponsored would invent a measure and dress it as a fact. A party column would make everything above it read as a partisan scorecard. This site is neutral infrastructure.
How this is read
Method
Which note comes first
Each bill's notes are put in order by the date each note prints about itself. Where two notes carry the same date, the FINAL banner an older note prints at the top of page one breaks the tie. Where neither settles it — 26 bills — both notes are shown and no direction is claimed. A direction there would be a coin toss wearing a percentage.
This matters more than it sounds. The cached file names do not run in date order: the two are the other way round for every session before 2026. Read them by file name rather than by printed date and "down beats up 2.1 to 1" becomes the opposite claim. Every other check on the page still passes.
Which figure is compared
The comparison is state expenditures in the budget year — the fiscal year the note itself labels as the budget year. Notes print two, three or four years. The column count also changes between versions of the same note. So the year is bound to the ruler the note prints, never to a column position.
What each note is checked against
Where a note prints a fund breakdown, the fund lines must add up to the total the note prints. That total must also equal the figure in the summary table. Both checks run on every read. A note that fails is reported, never quietly dropped.
What a bill is about is the legislature's own summary
Each bill record opens with the Bill Summary written by Colorado Legislative Council Staff, printed word for word from the bill's own page on leg.colorado.gov with the date it was read. This site does not write, shorten or rephrase it. The summary says which version of the bill it describes, and that note is printed beside it. Where the legislature publishes no summary, the record says NOT PUBLISHED and the space stays blank.
Sponsors are shown as the legislature's own identifier
The record gives each sponsor as a web address fragment, such as chris-degruy-kennedy.
Turning that into a name means guessing where the capital letters go, and this site does not
guess about a person's name. Each one links to the legislature's own page, which prints it
properly.
Source
Fiscal notes and vote records are published by the Colorado General Assembly at leg.colorado.gov (opens in a new tab). Notes are required by Joint Rule 22, with House Rule 32A and Senate Rule 25(e). The notes on this page were taken from each bill's own page on the legislature's site on 17 August 2026; the notes of the 139 bills that changed since then were taken again on 2026-09-23; the notes of 4 more bills were taken on 2026-09-24.
Pathways for Individuals with Mental Hlth Disorder
Concerning pathways for individuals with mental health disorders, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation.
Cost estimates
Every figure here is an estimate by Legislative Council Staff on the date shown, about the version of the bill in front of them that day. It is not a cost.
The appropriation
The bill carries its own money. A note saying a bill “requires and includes” an appropriation means the money is in the bill itself.
An appropriation is money the legislature sets aside. It is not money spent.
The appropriation field, read from the note: The bill requires and includes an appropriation of $5.3 million to the Department of Human Services in the current FY 2025-26. It also requires and includes appropriations of $25.1 million to multiple state agencies in FY 2026-27.
Bill summary
Under current law, if a defendant is found incompetent to proceed and the defendant will not be restored to competency in the foreseeable future, the court is required to dismiss charges against the defendant and the defendant, in limited circumstances, may be referred for certification for short-term treatment through a civil court process. The act maintains the requirement for the court to dismiss the charges against a defendant if the defendant's highest charged offense is among certain misdemeanor offenses, and the act maintains certification for short-term treatment as an option for the defendant. However, if the defendant is unrestorable or the defendant has reached the statutory maximum time permitted to be restored, the act authorizes the district attorney or county attorney (prosecution) to notify the court that the prosecution seeks civil commitment or an enhanced protective placement of a defendant if the prosecution can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant:
- Has a mental disability or developmental disability;
- Committed an act that, in the absence of any mental disability or developmental disability, would constitute homicide, a crime of violence, or a felony that constitutes unlawful sexual behavior, and the act is or was charged in a criminal case in Colorado in which competency was raised; and
- Poses a substantial risk of serious harm to others.
If the prosecution seeks civil commitment or an enhanced protective placement, the court is required to stay the order dismissing the defendant's case, set a trial within 91 days after the date the written notice was filed, and order the department of human services (CDHS) to identify an appropriate provider and placement for the defendant in the event a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement is granted. The defendant may stipulate that the court order a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement.
If the court finds the prosecution has not met its burden, the court is required to deny the prosecution's request to civilly commit the defendant or order an enhanced protective placement of the defendant; except that the court may consider whether to order other civil proceedings. If the court finds the prosecution has met its burden, the court is required to order the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement of the defendant, place the defendant and issue any related orders, transfer jurisdiction of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement to an appropriate civil court with jurisdiction, and dismiss the defendant's criminal case. When the court orders the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement, the court shall make a finding of the defendant's primary diagnosis that constitutes the mental disability or developmental disability. The court shall order the defendant civilly committed to the legal custody of CDHS unless the defendant's primary diagnosis is an intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) or a neurocognitive disorder, in which case, the court shall order an enhanced protective placement and legal custody of the defendant to the department of health care policy and financing (HCPF). If CDHS proposes placing the defendant into inpatient care, the court shall order, without further court review, that the defendant be placed into inpatient care at the discretion of CDHS if the court ordered a civil commitment or that the defendant be placed into inpatient care at the discretion of HCPF if the court ordered an enhanced protective placement. If CDHS has not identified an appropriate provider that is willing to accept placement of the defendant, the court shall set a review hearing within 35 days after the order for civil commitment or enhanced protective placement and order CDHS, in consultation with the behavioral health administration (BHA), to identify at least one appropriate provider.
Upon receiving jurisdiction of a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement, the act requires the civil court to supervise the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement by notifying the county attorney, appointing an attorney to represent the respondent, and setting a review hearing. At the hearing, the respondent has the right to request modification of the terms of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement and the right to periodic review, including whether the respondent qualifies for termination of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement. The court is required to ensure the respondent is placed in the least-restrictive setting adequate to protect the victims and community. If the respondent is not placed into inpatient care at the discretion of CDHS, or if CDHS proposes to move the respondent into or out of inpatient care, the court shall, prior to modifying the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement to change the respondent's provider or placement, review the appropriateness of the proposed provider or placement. The provider charged with the physical care and custody of the respondent is required to submit a report to the court and the parties annually by the date the respondent was civilly committed or ordered into enhanced protective placement unless a substantially similar examination was ordered by the court within the previous 12 months.
The act requires the court to terminate the respondent's civil commitment or enhanced protective placement if the respondent no longer poses a substantial risk of serious harm to others or the respondent does not have the applicable disorder or disability that is likely to cause the respondent to be a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others and the respondent has demonstrated sufficient capacity and willingness to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. If the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination, the respondent is not entitled to another termination trial within one year after the conclusion of the previous trial.
The court shall convert a civil commitment to an enhanced protective placement if the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination but the respondent has a mental health disorder that is an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, without having any other mental health disorder that is not an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder and that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If the defendant does not meet the criteria for termination and has co-occurring mental health disorders that include an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, the court may, upon the recommendation of CDHS, convert the civil commitment to an enhanced protective placement.
The court shall convert an enhanced protective placement to a civil commitment if the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination and the respondent no longer has an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If the defendant does not meet the criteria for termination and has co-occurring mental health disorders that do not include an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, the court may, upon the recommendation of CDHS, convert the enhanced protective placement to a civil commitment.
Under current law, an emergency mental health hold (M1 hold) may be initiated against a person for not more than 72 hours if the person appears to have a mental health disorder and, as a result of the mental health disorder, appears to be a danger to the person's self or others, or appears to be gravely disabled. A person detained for an M1 hold and transported to an emergency medical services facility or facility designated by the commissioner (facility) of the BHA is required to receive an evaluation as soon as possible after the person presents to the facility. The act authorizes a person who has an M1 hold initiated against them while in confinement to receive an evaluation at the person's place of confinement rather than being transported to a facility. If the person is released from confinement while under an M1 hold, the person responsible for the confinement is required to coordinate with the BHA to transfer the person to a facility.
Under current law, if a person under an M1 hold meets the criteria for certification for short-term treatment, the person may be certified for not more than 3 months. Rather than requiring an M1 hold as a prerequisite to short-term certification or certification for long-term care and treatment, the act authorizes a person to be certified if the person:
- Has been advised of the availability of, but has not accepted, voluntary treatment or with consideration of all reasonably available information, is believed will not remain in voluntary treatment; and
- By clear and convincing evidence, has a mental health disorder and, as a result of the mental health disorder, the person is a danger to the person's self, a danger to others, or gravely disabled.
A person may not be certified for short-term treatment or long-term care and treatment if the person has an IDD or neurocognitive disorder without any other mental health disorder that is not an IDD or neurocognitive disorder and that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If a respondent is certified, the court shall order CDHS to provide care coordination and make diligent efforts to find a provider for the respondent that is willing to hold the certification. The respondent may be certified for long-term care and treatment if the respondent continues to meet the criteria and standards for certification for short-term treatment. The certification terminates when the professional person in charge of the respondent's treatment and the BHA determine the respondent no longer meets the criteria for certification. To terminate a short-term treatment certification less than 30 days after the initial certification, two professional persons are required to individually consult and review the respondent's case and agree that the respondent no longer meets the criteria for certification.
A court may order the short-term or long-term protective placement of a person:
- Who, by clear and convincing evidence, has a neurocognitive disorder;
- When reasonable grounds exist to believe that the person will not remain in a voluntary treatment program; and
- Who, by clear and convincing evidence, is a danger to the person's self, a danger to others.
The act aligns the provisions for short-term and long-term protective placement with certifications for short-term treatment and long-term care and treatment.
No later than October 1, 2027, the act requires CDHS to construct and operate an outpatient treatment facility for adults with behavioral health needs, including adults who are found incompetent to proceed and unlikely to be restored to competency.
To implement the act, for the 2025-26 state fiscal year, the act appropriates to CDHS $535,934 from the general fund and $4,777,898 from the capital construction fund.
To implement the act, the act makes the following appropriations for state fiscal year 2026-27:
- $17,802,360 to CDHS from the general fund, of which $242,323 is reappropriated to the department of law and $52,644 to the office of information technology;
- To the judicial department, $26,296 from the judicial department information technology cash fund and $5,401,437 from the general fund, of which $1,719,409 is for use by the office of state public defender and specified independent agencies;
- $842,808 to HCPF from the general fund; and
- $150,000 to the department of law from the general fund.
FACT Bill summary by Colorado Legislative Council Staff, read 2026-09-23. Printed as published, word for word. Source: leg.colorado.gov (opens in a new tab)
What this bill appropriates
Two totals, two bases. An appropriation is money the legislature authorized to be spent, not money spent. For FY 2026-27, the Long Bill alone appropriates $49,560,763,693 FACT. The Appropriations Report from the Joint Budget Committee staff adds the other bills of the session: $49,694,444,712 FACT.
The General Fund is $17,351,445,407 FACT in the Long Bill alone and $17,461,279,123 FACT in the report. Both are correct, and we never add them. See both totals, with their sources.
Sources: HB26-1410 as enacted (opens in a new tab), chapter 436 of the Session Laws, read 8 October 2026. The FY 2026-27 Appropriations Report (opens in a new tab), read 11 October 2026.