It will come to order. Mister Beck, please call the roll. Representatives. Bacon? Here. Bradfield? Here. Caldwell? Here. Garcia Sander? Present. Gilchrist? Here. Hamrick? He's Hamrick? Excused. Hartzook? Here. Johnson? Here. Phillips? Yes. Smith? Here. Story? Yes. Martinez? Presente. Madam chair. Here. Okay. We are hearing two bills today. The first is senate bill 27, and both of our bill sponsors are here. Who would like to start? Rep Joseph. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here with you,
with my co prime sponsor to present senate bill 27. Senate bill 27 is a labor of love from senator Marchman. She's been working on this bill, since this summer, and I had the opportunity to hear about it firsthand. And I said to her, I really want to be a champion for this particular piece of legislation. I have shared with you some overview of the bill. Please check it out. And let me tell you a little bit, what the bill does. Senate bill 27 establishes a work group under the office of school safety to create
best practices for trauma informed school safety drills across Colorado. Why it matters? Traditional safety drill can unintentionally cause anxiety and trauma for students, especially those who have experienced prior traumatic events. A trauma informed approach, prioritizes emotional well-being and preparedness. Participants include education leaders, mental health specialists, school safety experts, law enforcement, and community stakeholders. So the goal of the bill is to develop guidelines for conducting safety drills that
protects the emotional and mental health of students and staff while ensuring effective emergency preparedness. I will stop right here. I just wanted to add, I am deeply grateful to have representative Ryan Gonzales with me here on this particular piece of legislation. Again, this is a good, bill to help our kids, especially kids who are, who have different experiences in school. And we want to make sure that, yes, drills are a necessary part of our education system, but we don't want to retraumatize our kids.
I've had those experiences as well, and not really having an outlet to discuss them and understanding what's going on. So I'm deeply grateful to be, the prime sponsor of this bill with my co prime here. Thank you. Rep. Gonzales. Thank you, madam chair. So just kinda echoing my colleague said about this bill. As we know, mental health is a concern not only just for our public, but also for our students and our well the well-being of our students is also very important. I'm pretty sure everybody can agree to that. What this bill does kinda highlighting and reiterating what Michael Prime said is we wanna
make sure we have plans in place for trauma based, issues. Now mind you, this trauma can be of any sort. So, you know, relatively speaking, we see climate disasters. We also see current the climate we have in today, which students are brought up in. Seeing a lot of the people in this, a lot of just disarray. So we wanna make sure we have, resources available to them. And, talking on the money aspect wise, I just kinda wanna reiterate wanna make it clear that this no state general fund dollars are involved. It does not impact Tabor, and it is entirely funded through GRIFS grants and donations.
So our understanding is we project on according to fiscal note anywhere from 50,000 to 70,000. So we believe that we can raise that money through gifts, grants, and donations. We also will bring some amendments minutes to kinda get some more support for this bill, and we'll touch on those when we get to that point. But, overall, I would say I think this is an important bill. I spoke to people in my district who, when I was brought forward this bill. So I wanted to make sure that the stakeholders in my area were involved about this policy before I move forward. And And the feedback that I got now from school boards, not only just from school boards, the superintendent, other people in education is,
they're very supportive of this bill. And so, obviously, representing my district, it's very important for me to make sure I put policies in place that benefit them. And they are very excited about this policy. So, yeah. I'm happy to discuss with any questions. Questions for our bill sponsors. Vice Chair Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you sponsors for bringing this up. So you'd mentioned the gifts, grants, and donations, which is great. Has has there been any has there been any sources identified yet, or is that, still ongoing? Rep Joseph. Thank you. Yes, madam. Thank you, madam chair. Yes, mister vice chair.
We did identify the source of funding. It's not coming to my brain right now, but rep Gonzales, do you remember the name of the group? Yes. It's from the CHI, which is Colorado Health Institute, actually, will do the grant, funding source research in it. Yes. Thank you. Pat Phillips. Thank you, madam chair, and thank you, representatives, for bringing the bill. I I'm I'm assuming that when we're talking about schools I'm assuming this is about shootings. We we already have, I think, fire drills, tornadoes, that should be happening already. My question is, what are what are what are schools doing now?
And and more importantly, what is the problem we are trying to solve? Meaning, who's not doing this already? Joseph. Thank thank you, madam chair. And, yes, thank you, representative Phillips for the question. The bill is about trauma informed. Yes. Some of the school school, drills are already happening. But in this particular context, what the bill is attempting to do is creating a work group in order to equip the schools with the right tools in order to ensure that the trainings are
trauma informed. Currently, the my understanding, the trainings are are not as robust or they don't include some of the, the conversation that the bill is attempting to do. By the way, I'm looking at the, we we currently do not have the working group. Right? And, those people who are in the working group are very extensive, and it also include mental health professionals who have who understand some of the challenges, especially when it comes to these type of emergencies. Gracia Sander. Thank you, madam chair.
So I'm curious. What's going to be different than what's already on the office of school safety website that addresses trauma informed, drills. It it's it's already there, what I see. It addresses culturally appropriate trauma informed drills. I guess, I'm just wondering what's different. Why is this legislation being brought forward? And, I've talked to several superintendents in Northern Colorado and, they're already doing a lot. We, as a principal who's done hundreds, if not thousands of drills, we are very trauma informed since trauma became a focus in the last fifteen,
twenty years around, how we instruct and support students. I am really curious about what's going to be different. I'm the this page has trauma informed drills resources. There's a lot already on here. It's a robust website. So why is this bill being run? Go ahead, Joseph. Thank you, madam chair. Again, part of the conversation, if you look on page seven, it talks about best practices. Yes. There is a website, but, nonetheless, the conversation is that, currently, the working group doesn't exist. We're creating this working group. We're we're making the process uniform.
And, again, part of the conversation is to plan and execute different types of school safety drills and, to provide best response to students who have emotional, reaction as a result of school safety, drills and also to determine the necessary for frequent, frequency of school personnel training. So, again, as part of the conversation before, we don't have currently, we don't have this particular working group, and this working group will help train and ensure that is this information is available,
to those schools in order to better support our students. Representative Guttersteiner. Thank you, mister Terrace. So, we're going to establish a working group to redo what's already been done. And, I guess, is this going to take away local control from our schools and school districts? Representative Joseph. Thank you, mister chair. I don't perceive that the bill will take away local control at all. It's just going to be a tool that they have. Again, part of the bill, it also mentioned it determines the amount of advanced notice given to parents before conducting
a school safety. Right? So it's creating a structure as part of that conversation. So, no, I do not perceive that it's going to take local control. Again, I think it's going to be in partnership with the school and the school districts. And, again, also too, if you notice in the bill, this particular working group is very, very extensive. It has community members, students, and also superintendents as part of it. So I do believe that this particular working group is truly informed by the schools
themselves as well. Thank you. Representative Johnson. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, sponsors. I have two questions. Page one, it says on or before September 1. That's after the school year started. So I am just confused on the need for a safety clause if we're gonna still not have it done before school starts. So I it's mixed message. Representative Gonzales. Thank you, mister chair. So one of the amendments we're bringing forward is we're gonna change to a petition clause. So that will address some of the concerns for that as well. Representative Johnson. Thank you. Second question, would be looking at how this task force is gonna be set up,
pages four, five, and six. We talked about the urban rule divide a lot, and I am seeing the option for urban or rural for a lot of this. But then it does say on line 14, page five, two teachers, one from urban. Again, one from urban, but there is no specification that one has to be from rural. There are options throughout this saying the they can be a superintendent who represents either rural or suburban. We see again that it can be a law enforcement officer who has experience in rural or urban. So there's no carve out saying specifically for rural representation, it has an or, but there is a carve out for two specifically from urban areas.
I'm just confused why, we're not gonna prioritize urban areas as well then. I mean, rural areas. Representative Gonzales. Thank you, miss Sharon. Thank you for the question. So, on page five, line 22, we're giving that power to the minority leader of the senate to choose, but we're also open to conversations down the road also if we have to, like, include, urban versus rural for the appointings of this, task force. Representative Johnson. Thank you, mister chair. And I just like it on the record. When we say we have to include, we should be including. We should wanna include rural. So that's very upsetting to me that it's a have to that,
and the or. So I would love to continue this conversation, making sure we have a carve out that specifically says if we have two teachers from urban, let's get teachers specifically for rural, not just urban or rural. Representative Phillips. Thank you. My question is knowing that because I'm I'm thinking this is mostly for shooter drills and so maybe I don't know if you wanna talk about that, but if this is for shooter drills and I hear you saying for the students, but we're also talking about trauma informed and knowing that, in recently in a in a school in the Rocky Mountain region where,
teachers there was kind of a mass exodus of teachers, that resigned due to a a threat of a shooter and, you know, there wasn't a plan in place. And I'm trying to figure out where this bill came from. I'm going, what what happened that, you know, that we're that we're doing this and and maybe is that why we're doing that? Because of the, teachers resigning, due to a plan not being in place when there was a potential shooter in the building? Who would like to answer that? Representative Gonzales. So, again, it's not specifically just school shootings. It's other trauma based stuff. So I think this what this bill aims to do is establish a task force
with more partnership with the community. So again, counselors, teachers, superintendents, students, all the like to have some more creative and robust ideas to kind of address some of the issues and concerns. I think right now what we have, you know, specifically in the example of school shootings, I think we could do better as far as working with our local partners to have, law, things to prevent that in place, which I think obviously we shouldn't be depending on the state to do that. I think we should be working with our local municipalities to find potential solutions for that. So I think what this bill does is, it helps bringing that stake holding process to it to include them and also specific
more experts in the field with this mental health, people in the community who are trying to address these issues. Because, again, you know, there's a mass exodus because we don't have safe schools, and I think we need to address the root problem of why we don't have safe schools. I mean, we all have ideas as to what we can do to have safe schools. But, again, that also leads to the trauma for students and concerns for teachers to safety. Right? So I think what this bill does is this wants to make sure that we have people from all sides at the table to make sure we think of very robust ideas that transcends party line to make sure we have safe schools.
And so I think this is kinda part of what we should be kind of allowing to do to have that safe cooling process done. Representative Joseph. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. I would like to, attempt to answer your questions as well to or to add to what Michael Prime just added. Representative Phillips, Repres senator Marchman represent part of Boulder County, and my understand Weld County as well and rep Larimer, and I don't know all of her counties, and representative Smith may be able to add to that. And I wanna share with you, I have seen the evolution of this bill.
I have been in conversations with, BVSD young people who were who are interested in this bill, who provided feedback on this bill. So when you ask who, were some of the stakeholders on this bill, and I can tell you that I've been part of the conversations that there has been students, who were part of this conversation, who also included or provided us language, to include in this bill and, as it relates to the climate conversation. So, yes, the bill includes, as you mentioned, as you know,
there is the, issue around the school shooting, but, also, I think what the student cares deeply about as well was the climate conversation. Representative Phillips. But I I'm sure it was extensively stakeholder for which I appreciate and especially reputation wise, I'm I'm sure that happens. That's a baseline for me. But my my my final question is is not about the stakeholders, but about was there an incident? Did something happen? Because in my mind, I'm going in my districts, I'm like, this better be happening already,
and I assume it has and I'll follow-up on that. But so my my question is, was there an incident like, what's what's the problem we're trying to solve? Was there an incident that happened? And so it was like, oh, we better do some state legislation for that. Representative Joseph. Thank you. Thank you for the question. I appreciate the comment, rep, Phillips. If you remember, we had a shooting in 2021. And although that happened in Rep Smith's district, I considered that my district because at the time I was on city council. And I have had the opportunity to talk to BVSD,
which is one of the schools that I represent, and also San Vrain. That has been part of the conversation. How do we ensure safety in schools? And I believe last year or two years ago, there was something put on social media about, a school shooting that was just, what do they call them, sweating sweating? So these things are continuously happening in our community. We may not hear of it today, but it's constantly happening. How do we ensure our children's safety even when the it's it's it is a threat.
When somebody call a school and tell you there is, in the minute, school shooting, because it's been happening all over the nation, we have to take this seriously. And how do we, how do we ensure that our school administrators and teachers are best equipped to support our kids as these things are happening? And social media also play a huge role into fueling these type of threats. Representative Hartzak. Thank you, mister chair. So I've got kids in schools. I get notified every time there's a drill, every time there's anything that's going on in advance that they're gonna be doing stuff.
We we have it all the time. We also have SROs. So at the local level, this is happening. You've heard a lot of questions. The local school districts are implementing this. So why on earth would we create another task force at the state level to collect money when all this money should be going down to the school districts? Why are we gonna put another bureaucratic level in here? Let's just get the money down to school districts. If you wanna raise funds, great. Send it to school districts. You want safety? Get more SROs in there. Do that at the school district, not up here at the state. We don't need people at the state telling the school districts what to do. So thoughts on that.
Representative Gonzales. Yeah. No. Thank you, representative. So, again, this pulls from this is gonna be gift grants and donations, so it's not taxpayer funded. And this task force will just serve as a recommendation for policy, so it's not like you have to accept it. I think this is just more stakeholder than you get more information. As we know, information is always changing and policy is in place. So I think this would just serve as kinda like a mere, recommendation for what some schools who don't or have already have plans in place do. Again, it's not something that we're forcing people to do. So if they choose to take it, great. If not, you know, they can choose not to take it.
So it's just more stake holding with more experts in the, the board that we're creating, the task force that's been created. Representative Joseph. Thank you, mister chair. I wanted to respond to your question, representative Hartsook. Thank you. I had a parent reach out to me because of this bill, and she did say I can share her story. She said her child is, was in elementary school, and I'm trying to make sure that I use the right language as I'm having this conversation. She mentioned that her son was on, a child who
was on the spectrum, and, he would go to school. And one day, they had a drill. He was in the bathroom. And because of that, he started having issues with going to the bathroom. He would not go to the bathroom. He would just pee on himself because he feared if there is a one of these drills that he didn't wanna be in the bathroom or be cut in the bathroom. So, again, these are traumas that our kids are experiencing. And the parent didn't know about this until several years later because that became an
issue that they were constantly dealing with as a family. Because, again, you know, after a certain age, a young person is trained to use the bathroom. And this young child was still having bathroom issues. And the reason why is because there was a drill at the school, and he was in the bathroom at the time. So he refused to go to the bathroom because of fear of using the bathroom. So, again, we want to make sure that teachers are well equipped. I understand what you're saying. Drills have been done for years. Right? But at the same time,
we want to ensure that these teachers and school administrators understand, the or understand the implication and the traumas that some of kids, some of the or children are dealing with when it comes to these safety drills. Safety drills are not the natural course of everyday life. There are things that happened. Right? There happened because of certain instances of school shooting, natural disasters, and their parents are not there. So how do we ensure that these kids feel safe and protected and they understand
the implications of these school safety trainings or safety drills? Representative Hartzick. Thank you, mister chair. I'm pretty sure that the teachers, having taught, the teachers at the ground level with the students know their students. And if there's a problem, then the teacher can work with the counselor and the parents at the ground level. They certainly don't need the state bureaucratic level coming all the way from up here, issuing guidance, suggestions, or anything else. Send the funding down there. I mean, we hear all the time schools need this. I mean, that's where the funding should be going to,
not here at the state level. I mean, come on. Is that directed or or more of a statement, representative Hartzell? Mister Cherry, I I guess it's it's more of a explain how the state can do something better that isn't happening with the teachers on the ground and the counselors that know their students and know what's going on. How can the state possibly do that better? Representative Joseph. Thank you, representative Horstook. I mean, here's what I can say. Representative Hartsook. I'm an attorney, and every three years, I have to do CLEs. And I do believe everyone in their profession
want tools. It's not that you go into your profession and you know it all forever. Right? And I think what this bill is doing or what it is attempting to do is provide additional tools to our teachers. Yes. I do trust our teachers. I do know they know what to do, and I know they care deeply about their students. I used to be a substitute teacher myself. They sacrifice a lot for their students. What this bill is doing is just give them additional tools. AML Bacon. Thank you, mister chair. Can I dialogue briefly? Just are we I mean, because I I'm gonna ask a few questions since we've been doing that,
if if I'm allowed, sir. Yes. You are allowed. Okay. Amel Bacon. Thank you. So I guess so I heard some questions, and I'm going to ask these kind of in a way that, yes, they might be leading, but to help answer some of the questions. So the bill requires a report to be made of recommendations, but it it does not require any school district to follow them. Is that correct? Right? Yes. And then when we think about who is pulled together, would it be safe to say because I know we have teachers,
who work on the ground level with folks. But, you know, in the commentary of what you may have heard from educators, have you often heard about teachers talking about the scope of their work, what their job is and isn't, and that what they are being asked to do in this area? Have you had any feedback from educators saying it might be great if someone else helps us figure this out so we can focus on instruction? Thank you, Emil Bacon. I really appreciate the comment that you make because you are right that oftentime, teachers are, sacrificing a lot.
They're sacrificing their time, their money, to take care of their students. And getting additional support, whether it's through a working group or through the administrative process of the school, is very helpful to them. And, also, too, there are new teachers in the system. Right? Everyone is are not teachers who've been there ten years, twenty years, and knows everything. Right? So because we have high turnover and we have new teachers and we need to ensure that we have these, these recommendations ready for those who want to utilize the tools for their classroom or
the school. K. And I think my other question is, you know so I was around for some of the early conversations, and I am completely being leading. This is not a real court. I would get objected at every time. But, you know, part of the conversation too has been, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this state has more school districts than counties. As much as we may have experienced in this committee room, not every school district actually does have the staff to think through mental health supports. Most of the school districts, I would say,
I I would believe. But is it true that we do not have a space or a repository to understand what's happening across all school districts? To understand if every school district, not just the ones that are represented here, has the staff or the resources to think through this. Is there also not a repository where all school districts could be spoken to to develop ideas for best practice? And even though big bad liberal from Denver, maybe so Watch County is doing something cool.
Where else is there a space where we have pulled together best practice? We're dialoguing. Oh oh, thank you, mister chair. Thank you. Sorry. I just thank you, rep Bacon, for bringing this conversation or at least this question to us. I know that I've had conversation with my school district, Boulder Valley School District. And as many of you know, Boulder Valley is better off than some of the other schools around the state. And I have heard them say to me they want to have more conversation when
it comes to school safety. They want to have conversation on how do we better support teachers and the administration. So I know if my own district in Boulder is having that conversation and reaching out when it comes to school safety, I can only only imagine for the other school districts in the rural areas around the state. And I'll leave that to my co prime sponsor to offer any, other feedback and, comments on on that front. Yeah. So, Amel Bacon, I appreciate what your,
your dialogue has been is. This is just mere recommendations for policy. So in my district specifically, I only have one school district. One of the larger ones, obviously, when we're talking about allocating stuff for school districts, mine, the school district is one of the highest that received funding. Now what my school district has specifically said is we are more than happy to take a listen and look at what some of these recommendations are because there are some things that probably weren't thought out in my school district that could potentially be beneficial with what this, this task force aims to do. Now I don't know about other districts in my county specifically.
I know there is obviously funding concerns for my county when it comes to schools and in public schools. So, again, we don't wanna, you know, overwork our teachers because, again, you know, their their job role. Right? You know, caring for students and the like, but not that not all of them, I would assume. I think it's a right assumption that they are licensed psychologists or counselors or therapists who are able to, you know, be that torque of, you know, person for trauma. That being said, what was highlighted was there's high turnover and there's new teachers. There are a lot of new teachers across the state,
everywhere. You've seen a lot of teachers who have been teachers that have retired recently, and I have new teachers who, in many cases, don't have the tools equipped to help and do help provide per, help get the trauma support that we need. And so I think this would be a good way to help our new teachers to make sure that we have at least good, probably, those policies in place. And, again, this is not mandates. This is more services report for recommendations of what they could do for those who are new to the job or who for those who lack funding, who can't even come up with these type of, you know,
policymakers when it comes to stake holding, like parents, teachers, nurses, things of the like to make sure we have good schools when it comes to trauma. K. This is my last question. And there thank you for that. There's only one witness today, and we seem to have questions. Right? But the one thing that I am curious about for you or whoever may testify as well, just to wrap up that line of questioning, is is actually in this regard. The issues around school safety have changed dramatically in the last twenty five years. We have different types of schools,
different types of circumstances across the state, and the state has not pulled together resources in a comprehensive way. They're out there, right, to be able to figure out what is Colorado's version of this. There are new things that are happening, swatting, the SRO questions, because we have questions here that are unique to our state. But the but the actual question I have for you is around the task force makeup. I am curious about the conversation of having student voice be involved. We do we do healthy healthy schools.
We do the healthy the healthy student the healthy you know what I mean. The student survey every year. And this issue of mental health supports, it's not just external. It's internal. That data has been so telling over the last ten years that we need student voice to help us articulate what is happening. And if we're gonna talk about school safety, there is in here one student who is nonvoting. I would encourage or inquire about what is this task force is, how they're gonna spend their time talking with students,
and if they could refer to the data that students have been providing us in regards to how they feel safe. So I don't know if that's been a question, on the bill. Oh, yes. It is dialogue. Thank you. Thank you, AML Bacon for this question. Yes. We do have a student, who is a nonvoting member, and we've ran bills together to ensure that youth voice is at the center of the work that we do. And I think the question, at least what I'm hearing from you, is that you believe that maybe young people should have a stronger voice as part
of this conversation. And I welcome that, and I'd like to have that conversation with you. Again, this is a senate bill. It's not a house bill. I'd have to go back to senator Marchman and ask her what's her thought on, maybe adding a voting member, a student who's a voting member. But, ultimately, that would be her decision. But I'm happy to have that conversation. And if we need to have a second reading amendment, I'm open to it. But, ultimately, as I mentioned to you, it would be up to senator Marchman. Representative Storey. Thank you, mister chair. So I have a couple of concerns. One is,
well, primarily focused on the work group and who is in the work group or how they're appointed. So the the bill the title in the bill is about trauma informed practices. Mhmm. And trauma informed practices are unique strategies that are different than what we typically would look at as mental health services or, therapy, for people. Trauma informed care is separate in and of itself in how it operates and what it focuses on in
order to help, people cope with the issues that they have because of trauma. And it's relatively new. And so what I see in the bill is the importance of utilizing trauma informed practices surrounding drills, before drills, after drills, and certainly surrounding any kind of incidents that might occur. And so then when I look at the the work group that is being established in the bill, you know, there's lots of different, individuals that would come to the table,
which, you know, I can certainly appreciate. However, on page four, line 23. I am confused about b. It says a representative from the office. Is it supposed to be from the office of something? That is an omission that I don't get, that needs to be changed, and that representative from the office is appointed by the governor. So I wanna know what office that is. But then, throughout the whole list there's, you know, certainly entities that you would expect to be there: Department of Public Health and Environment,
the Commissioner of the Department of Education, a student, a district superintendent, a school principal, two teachers, a school nurse, two mental health professionals, a behavioral health, oh, no. Sorry. Two mental health professionals, a re school resource officer, a professional expert in public health or school safety, and a representative from the fire life and safety section of the division of fire prevention and control. So I can see how all these entities are kind of coming together about a drill, but the whole bill is focused on trauma informed
care. And I would think you'd want a wealth of specialists in the group that can address what you're trying to potentially institute in how drills are presented to students and staff and how drills are, go through a process post drill, for students and staff. And there's only two mental health professionals, one of of whom must specialize in child development or trauma informed care,
and a behavioral health specialist. One, maybe. Only one, maybe. Like, the whole bill is focused on trauma informed care, which is a specialty within mental health. So this composition needs to have a wealth of specialists that focus on younger kids, middle school, high school, adults, and there are specialists across the spectrum, you know, to to help, students with disabilities. Like, we need trauma informed care specialists on this work group,
not just maybe one. And then my other great concern about the appointments is that 15 of the 17 appointments are made by elected officials. I can come up with a teacher. I can come up with a principal. I can come up with a lot of people that fall into these categories. But am I going to come up with the best representatives across the whole state to sit on this workforce? Like, I want mental health specialists, you know, addressing the needs of this work group.
And sure, legislate or elected officials often have appointments to committees or to work groups, but not 15 of 17, maybe four out of 17. Like, I I'm very concerned about the balance of the work group itself. And then, my yeah. I think I covered it. Anyway, so can you talk to me about this and if they there can be some anticipated changes? Rep. Joseph. Thank you, madam chair. I can I heard two questions that I can answer, and then my co prime can fill in the rest?
Thank you for bringing that up as it relates to page four, line 23. I need to follow-up with the drafter on that, and you're right because that was also a a note that I put for myself as well, which office. So I think it's a typo somewhere. And, yes, I do anticipate change because you're right. It doesn't add up, a representative from the office appointed, by the governor. But sometimes the way the drafters write as well doesn't always it reads differently legally. Let's just let me just put it this way. And by the way,
I didn't mean that in any way. It's just that, the way these laws are written is very different than the way you as a teacher would write things on paper. But I have full faith in our drafters, so I'd love to follow-up with her and come back to you on that one. And then to your second point about the 17, 15 of the 17 appointments made by elected officials, I do understand that. That is I do see your concern because, but I also wanted to note that it's not the same elected official as I'm
sure you can tell a representative, story is that it's different. There's the minority leader of the senate, the majority leader of the house, or the minority leader of the house as well, so it's different. Elected officials doing it. But I think you're right. Part of the conversation is that should this building be the one doing the appointing? Should we go closer to the grass root where the people are most impacted and affected? Should we go maybe to the school teacher, the principal, or other people in the community? And I'd love to have that conversation with you to find out what that would
look like. And just a note for the committee that, business and labor has already finished four bills while we're still just in our opening here. So please be concise and to the point with our questions. And, we have a list of, Story, then Hammock, then Bradfield, then Garcia, Sander, then Johnson, and then we're moving on from questions. Rep Story. Yes. In follow-up, representative Joseph, there are four selected by the president of the senate, two by the minority leader in the senate, three from the speaker of the house, two from the minority leader. That is a lot of appointments for leadership when,
like I said, the whole bill is focused on trauma informed care, and we only have maybe one person on the work group. So that I I stand with my concern there. I am really concerned about composition of this. And so yeah. It it needs to be addressed, and I appreciate your willingness to go there. Rep Joseph? Yes. Thank you, madam chair, and thank you, rep Story. I welcome that feedback. Thank you. Rep Hamrick. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, sponsors. Is there an assumption that's that's driving this bill that drills just drills themselves are
trauma causing? Rep Gonzales. I wouldn't say necessarily just drills, but I would just say other factors that lead to potential drills. And I think just putting policies in place that could lead to trauma inducing for our students. So, you know, you hear credible threats and, you know, others mentioned swatting and other factors. I think with what we see today, students see that social media and just kinda like what we're we're living in very interesting times when it comes to our culture. And so I think there's not necessarily a premise just for the drills, but I would say it's a premise for just a wide range of externalities that
we see all over that induce stress and induce stress and trauma to our students. Bradfield. Thank you, madam chair. When I think of drills, I think of something school wide, such as weather drills, fire drills, you know, safety drills for a shooter in the building, that type of thing. When I think of a trauma, I think of that as a small group, event, and that is not necessarily something that has to be practiced school wide. That's where I am. Also, I I take a look at this,
and I quite agree with representative story. When you, are talking about trauma, you're talking about needing the experts, to be on this task force to, give the best advice for that. The other thing is the task force, no place here. Do I see any, mention or discussion of lost instruction time for all of, these drills, because we can just really fill up a whole day with,
a lot of minutiae that, doesn't have a learning, goal in mind. And so I I am really careful about what is happening in our schools that take the whole student body away from being, in an instructional situation. Okay. Thank you. Is that a question? Nope. I'm done. Okay. Rev Garcia, Sandy. Sorry. I'm gonna pass. Thank you. Okay. Rev Johnson. Thank you, madam chair. And to the sponsors, it's kind of a twofold question. One, have you talked to the advisory board serving the office of school safety?
The reason I ask is this body this year just passed and it was just signed, house bill twenty five eleven seventy three, dealing with expanding the role of advisory board to serve the office of school safety, addressing crisis management, safety related grant funding, safety resource centers in a, way that's collaborative. So we're not reinventing the wheel. We're not using undue services. Funds like this, I I very much worry that we're pulling it to a task force, that we already have an advisory board that we can reallocate those funds to be more efficient, more streamlined on something this body just voted on this year to do exactly what
you're trying to do in this bill. Rep Gonzales. I know I have not, but I we're gonna follow-up with the sponsor just to make sure because I know there were some conversations related to the state cooling that was done. So when we have an answer as to what the senator sponsor said, I'm happy to relay that information to you. Beth Gilchrist. Thank you, madam chair. I have just one question on, the sorry. Wondering if you could explain if the task force and I don't clearly see this in the bill, but I'm wondering if this was part of intention to to evaluate the effectiveness of
these drills and if if they need to be adjusted to be more effective or reduction in the drills because they aren't as effective as what we would hope for. Rep Joseph. Thank you. I would say yes based on if you look at page seven, most of page seven talks about best practices and determining skills and also timeline when you look on page seven. So, again, what the bill is doing is creating a set of recommendation. And because they're meeting and I had it in my notes how many time they're
meeting. Four meetings for the first six months. So, again, I do believe that they will they are evaluating and constantly updating as part of this working group. Okay. Let's move on to testimony. We only have one person signed up to testify. Oh. Can I please respond to, representative Dustin Yes? Rep Joseph. Yes. Johnson's comment or questions. I did speak to rep, senator Marchman, and, yes, we did have a, conversation with, the school office of school safety. Yes. They've been part of the conversation.
Okay. Okay. Let's move on to testimony. We have one person signed up to testify. If you can pull up Evie Hudak. I believe she's online. Okay. Miss hoo miss Hudak, you have three minutes. Please state your name and who you represent for the record. Thank you, madam chair. I'm senator former senator Evie Hudak, and I'm here today representing Colorado PTA. In light of the conversation that you've had, this morning, I have a tremendous amount to say. And I hope you will allow me a little more time, since I'm the only person, speaking about this bill.
PTA strongly supports Senate Bill 27. One of our founding purposes is to support the well-being and safety of all children and youth, we feel very strongly that all students and educators have a right to attend schools that are safe and conducive to learning and achievement. Yet schools are experiencing frequent incidents that are having a devastating long term impact on students, parents, educators, and the community. Even safety drills can be traumatizing for students,
especially young ones. Safety drills are different from fire drills because they are, they require students to, hide and, lock doors. And the awareness of the great danger that students are in and they're not allowed to communicate with their parents during that time. They have to turn off all equipment that would make a sound. It is very, very traumatizing. In fact, we heard from a parent whose child had a lockdown drill on the first day
of kindergarten. That was not what he wanted to be his child's first school experience. Many, many parents have expressed concerns about this issue. We believe that this bill will, recommend to school districts that they give parents notice before such drills will happen so parents are aware and can deal with the, the feelings that their kids have when they come home from school, like this one kindergarten parent's
parent had to do. We do believe it's vital for schools to communicate with families about all policies regarding school safety. A positive school climate is one that encourages mutual trust and respect among students, staff, and families. PTA believes that creating an education and support system that is trauma informed at all levels is important for protecting youth and promoting positive physical, mental, and emotional well-being for all. As a former teacher myself,
I can tell you that not all teachers know all their students, especially at the beginning of the school year. And especially at the secondary level, I was a secondary teacher when I had five classes and I had students coming in and out every 50. It takes longer to get to know your kids, especially when you have large class sizes. We believe that all schools must be trauma informed and provide resources and support so
that all school based professionals Thank you. If you can please wrap up. Okay. I I told you I I have a little bit more to say, and I hope you'll grant me the opportunity to tell you that we believe We, if folks have questions, they can ask questions. I'm sorry. We do have to move on. Thank you, senator Hudak. Any questions for this panel? Rep Story. Thank you, madam chair. Miss Hudak, I'm just curious what p t or senator Hudak. Sorry. I can't believe I said that.
I'm curious, about your thoughts, PTA's thoughts regarding the composition of the work group and their ability to, complete the task that would be before them as a work group relative to the composition. Senator Hudak. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, senator Store I mean, representative Storey for asking that question because that was one of the things I additionally wanted to say, that we strongly believe the task force should have a parent on it and more specialists in trauma informed strategies.
We don't think that having so many appointments made by elected officials instead of groups and agencies with specialization is appropriate. And as a former elected official myself, I can tell you that elected officials do not know who the specialists are and who the best people would be to serve on the committee. And the other thing I wanted to say is we believe the task force will save districts time by providing, by developing appropriate programs and trainings so the schools will not have to do it.
The districts will not have to do it themselves. Rep. Hamrick. Thank you, madam chair. Senator Hudak, any other insights into the classroom in this bill? Senator Hudak. Thank you, madam chair. In in regard to the amount of time that is taken for these safety drills, PTA thinks that it's important to have drills, but a lot of schools don't do them in a trauma informed way. And we strongly believe that there is a necessity for recommendations to come forward about
what the best way it is to do these safety drills so that our students and teachers will not be traumatized by, you know, them being told they're practicing for somebody, a shooter, to come in and kill people. Just the fact, the basis of why these drills are taking place is in and of itself traumatizing. Phillips. Thank you, madam chair. Senator Hudak, my question is just how does this bill help? Like, I I I clearly understand the problem,
and I think we all support trauma informed school safety practices. This bill is to make a statewide task force. So if you're just in a couple sentences, how does that solve the problem? Senator Hudak. Thank you, madam chair. So this helps it will help if you have a good task force with specialization in trauma informed strategies. It will help by, having all the materials, developed and available to schools and districts. I think there is a great need for that. And also,
the part of the bill that says that parents should be in, in told in advance about these drills is one of the most vital parts of this bill. Okay. Thank you so much, senator Hudak. We greatly appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else in person or online who wishes to testify on this bill? Seeing none, the testimony phase is closed. Bill sponsors. Rip Joseph, do you need a few minutes? Yes. Would you like to go into a brief recess? Yes. The education Yep. Joseph. Thank you, madam chair.
Based on the conversations that we've had today, I just wanna thank the committee for the opportunity to have the conversation we've had on this bill. However, we would like to lay the bill over for action only at a future date to have further conversation and see if we can bring forward some amendment that would be amenable to the rest of the committee. Thank you so much. Okay. So we are, going to keep the amendment phase open Yes, sir. And we are going to lay the bill over for action only. Do I have to gavel that? Sure. Lay the bill will be laid over for action only. Yeah.
Okay. Now we will move on to senate bill one sixty seven. Okay. Okay. Okay. Do you want me to take back the amendments? I think you already distributed them. You keep it. Alright. We have our bill sponsor at the table. We will now be hearing senate bill one sixty seven. Madam chair. Thank you, mister chair and members of the education committee. Today, we bring before you senate bill one sixty seven, which is in regards to better investing to benefit Colorado's communities. So, a bit of background information about this bill. So this, this bill was or this was established within the state constitution,
is the creation of the public school permanent fund, also referred to as PSPF. So I will be referring to that as PSPF throughout the, throughout the committee hearing. For many years, a broad group of stakeholders has explored how to maximize the impact of that fund while adhering to its constitutional guidelines. I just keep turning back to see when Rep Bird is walking in. So just like I will absolutely afforb you. Sound the alarm when when you see a a bird flying in. Okay. So most notably in 2021, the school finance and trim committee advanced a bipartisan bill to establish a working group
on this very topic. Let the record reflect that that representative Burt has now joined us. Impeccable timing. One moment. Representative Byrd, welcome back to Education. I am so pleased to be, joining you all. Alright. I will just pick up where my good colleague left off. So, I know that we began with some background. And most notably, in 2021, the school finance interim committee advanced a bipartisan bill to establish a working group on this very topic. The the bill, house bill eleven forty six, passed in 2022,
and the working group, which meant from 2022 to 2023, developed recommendations that are incorporated into the legislation you have before you today. We now have a bill that aims to increase the amount of community investments, particularly investments benefiting public school employees made in Colorado. At a very high level, senate bill one sixty seven clarifies that the public school permanent fund may be invested in a variety of community investments, including school district bonds and certificates of participation,
as well as products that help public schools attract and retain talent, such as housing products. This is a valuable step forward in ensuring that we benefit not only from the distributions of the permanent fund, but also from the ways in which those funds are invested. By investing back into our state, the fund can simultaneously increase its positive impact on the state while also increasing the fund's financial performance. The public school permanent fund, as it currently stands, is already invested in hundreds of millions of dollars of mortgage products,
but these are national mortgage products that support housing all over the country. Instead, we want to invest in these types of sound financial products, but to benefit people in our state, Coloradans, and specifically Colorado public school employees. Additionally, this bill does not change the structure of making investment decisions. The Public School Fund Investment Board will still make the decisions on how the community investment portfolio is invested. Within the community investments portfolio, we will establish the Educator First homeownership program.
This program creates a down payment shared appreciation product that can help public school employees purchase market rate housing. It is worth noting that down payment assistance often comes in the form of concessionary grants. This program differs by providing significant levels of down payment support that will be repaid at resale of the property. Within this structure, public school employees can expect to pay approximately $1,000 less per month on a $500,000 home. And the permanent fund is still estimated to receive a return of 7% per year
through the program. To put this in context, last year, the public school permanent fund had a realized gain of only 3.2%. The biggest asset most people are ever going to make is their home. And you know I beat that drum all the time. Homeownership is the financial key that helps unlock, stability, wealth preservation across families, and generations. Madam chair. Thank you, mister chair and members of the education committee. I'm so excited to bring this bill before you today. In Colorado, the median teacher salary was approximately $60,000
during the twenty twenty one, twenty twenty two school year. However, housing affordability for teachers has been a significant challenge. Out of the nearly 1,900,000 homes in the state, less than 20% were valued at a price affordable for the average teacher's salary in their district. We can do more to support our public school employees, and in senate bill one sixty seven does just that by creating a new opportunity for homeownership for thousands of buyers. The housing shortage has contributed to the already acute problem of attracting and retaining teachers from across the state. Teachers, teacher incomes are not keeping pace with skyrocketing home prices,
and interest rates have only made the problem worse. This bill is geared to help Colorado educators who often can't afford to buy in the communities where they work. Housing that is affordable is a significant factor in influencing teacher retention rates. Studies have shown that financial stress related to housing costs can lead to increased teacher turnover. Further, addressing housing authority has been linked to bringing back teachers teachers back into the classroom. A study by the Learning Policy Institute found that nearly twenty five percent of former teachers reported that housing incentives might encourage them to return to the profession.
As of last year, the median age of first time homebuyers in The US has reached an all time high of 38, up to two years from just the year before. Yet our economy still relies on homeownership as the main source of building wealth. Therefore, I see this bill as one step to making the American dream more accessible to our public school employees. I have two things that I also wanna note. As a rural legislator, I'm committed to rural Colorado and know how challenging housing is in rural areas. The section of the bill that dedicates 25% of the funding is intended to go to rural and underserved communities, but I wanna make clear that the word rural there is important to me.
We are really committed to rural in this bill, and we know that they have unique challenges not only in housing, but also in workforce and material costs as well. I also want to note something that I have heard from a few colleagues in relation to the the fiscal impact of the bill. There is no impact to the general fund. The PSPF investment u board utilizes a fraction of the interest to pay for for staff and contract expertise necessary to make prudent financial investments on behalf of the PSPF.
On its face, this is a bit of a wonky bill. I see that this bill allows our state to make valuable investments back on into Colorado while simultaneously establishing a program that is estimated to help thousands of public school employees, gain access to market rate housing and begin to build wealth in ways that too often feels out of reach for the profession. This bill presents an opportunity to leverage existing resources and tools at our disposal and be more strategic with state resources. This bill ensures we live up to our responsibility to use Colorado taxpayer resources wisely
and efficiently by investing back into the state, all while investing with an eye to expanding access to housing, community benefits, and building greater wealth for our workforce. We ask for a yes vote on senate bill one sixty seven. Are there any questions for the bill sponsors? Representative Hartzak. Thank you, mister chair. Madam chair, you're singing my tune. I'm loving this. Can you, a, go in a little bit more, but also can you talk and if you don't have the answer, if there's gonna be a witness to Scott, why do we need two FTEs to do this? I mean, kinda like what you're talking about seems fairly simple,
straightforward, so why do we need two FTEs? Representative Byrd. Thank you, mister Tarrin. Thank you, representative Hartzick, for the question. So the two FTEs are coming at the request of the Treasury to assist that department to restructure its investment strategy for the public school fund. So, that's meeting what's that? Hello? Hello? So, yes, the two FTE are requested for the Department of Treasury to help them restructure investment strategy. So the two FTE include investment staff with expertise in asset classes that are not currently managed by the Treasury.
Standard operating and capital outlay costs are also included, but that's the staff. Representative, we've got our CS center. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, two questions. Is this fund already investing in this manner outside of Colorado? I didn't realize there was this fund, so I'm learning about it. Representative Byrd. So we're creating a new fund, but, the public school, I'm gonna get the name wrong. Public school permanent fund is already being invested nationally in mortgage backed products. So what this bill will do is focus more on a set amount of that
type of investment right here in Colorado. So I think in my opening comments, I talked some about that. We will have witnesses who can get more into what the permanent fund's national investment strategy is, but some of this is just to, highlight the fact that this isn't necessarily a new asset class. We are directing the investment more towards housing for teachers and other, public school employees, but right here in the state of Colorado. So it's more of, a focused approach. Right now, there is a national investment in in home mortgage loans,
but people people will discuss that. That is permitted within the rules of the permanent fund investments. Representative, we've got to see the center. Okay. So just to follow-up on that. So somebody will discuss that this is this is not a fund that we already have in Colorado. This is a national thing that we are or this is a new fund. I I'm confused because it sounds like this fund is established, but now I thought I heard you say it's new. Representative Byrd. Thank you, mister chair. So no. The permanent fund exists. That was created in our constitution in the late eighteen hundreds.
But within the permanent fund, there's this bill, and you'll see if you look on page on the re engrossed version, the creation of this community, what is the name? The name of the fund is the Community Investment Portfolio, and that's that's this segment that is to be invested the way this bill contemplates. That's what's being created. Representative or madam chair. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, rep Garcia Sanders. So I have a a whole document called public school permanent fund at a glance,
and I was under the impression that it was emailed to the whole committee. But if it wasn't, I'm going to just look behind me and check that it can be sent to the whole committee, so that you all can reference that as well. But there is we do have a two pager about what the public school permanent fund is, and I will get that sent your way because I know that you like to print it out, mark it all up. Representative, we got to see the sender. Thank you. And then, just a follow-up question. This, the fiscal notes have evolved since this was introduced, I guess, right across the desk. I am just wondering if our JBC
member can explain how this went from in the millions to down to $677,000 on expenditures and 2% FTE, down from 13.2%. If you could just explain how this got pared down so that it helps me make sense of the reengrossed version. Representative Byrd. Thank you, mister chair. So, just to make sure everybody's looking at the correct fiscal note, the one that's relevant for the bill that you have before you is dated April 9. And I think, rep Garcia Sander, you are noting the cost there.
So the bill is introduced originally sourced dollars from the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund. And since that time, we've changed the funding source. So now the only funds that will be spent are the permissible funds, which are some interest and income that come from the permanent school fund or the permanent yes. Perm the public school permanent fund. I should just use the acronym PSPF. Representative Phillips. Thank you. And thank you, bill sponsors, for bringing the bill. I'm just trying hard to sit in my seat and not jump up and down.
This is something that's been needed for so long and especially with the losing the federal funds. And we used to do a lot of teacher next door housing in my neighborhood. That's been gone for more than a decade. We have a teacher shortage a million times. Thank you. So my question is, I know you're really deep in the weeds on the the finance part, and, actually, I I trust you, and I I don't even feel like I can ask, appropriate questions on some of the money pieces. But I do wanna ask these questions. I wanna and maybe I'm a step ahead because I know this is first getting the money part, but I'm I know this is what people are gonna ask me when I go
brag about this later. They're gonna these are the questions they're gonna have. The, teacher, just walk me through this. Okay? I'm a teacher. I wanna buy a condo using this program. Another scenario. I'm a state rep. I wanna sell my condo to a teacher. How does that work? Do you have to is there are there any restrictions for, like, to this and I'm saying teacher, but I mean school employees, and I wanna make sure that includes bus drivers, custodians, and cafeteria workers. K? And then, is there are there any requirements that you have to live, like, in the school? Just I live in an, an as you know,
an unsafe neighborhood. And so are there any requirements for, like, you have to live in the district or you have to live near the school? But my overall question is just walk me through the through the process on what it will look like for somebody that wants to buy in the program or somebody wants to if somebody can sell into the program if that's a thing. Representative Byrd. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, representative Phillips. So Chapa will be the program administrator and, I think the way that this will work there's nothing in the bill, that I'm aware of unless I miss this. It requires,
the public school employee to live in the district or near their school, but we'll have witnesses to come and confirm all of that for you. But CHFA will administer this and, they do all kinds of program outreach. And I'm hopeful that maybe we have somebody with CHFA here in our on our witness list. I'm not sure. But if not, some other witness will talk you through this. But I know CHFA has great customer service and outreach in helping navigate, access to the mortgages. Because the program here is there you can get, the benefit of mortgages that this fund invests in,
but then also down payment assistance. And those, I imagine would all be, administered through CHFA, and they would handle the public facing piece of that. Representative Hamrick. Thank you, mister chair. Just a few questions, and and just let me know if I I should just ask a witness. Thank you, miss Sharon, and thank you, bill sponsors. Rep. Byrd, you talked about the public school permanent funds, being used for many things like attracting talent. What other things can it be used for? Representative Byrd. Currently? So, if you look let's see here. The current purposes let me just we have them in our bill also.
Just a second. But it is we are to use the permanent fund for intergenerational benefit for our Colorado kids and we and our schools. So using income from that fund to benefit our kids and our schools. Representative Hammock. And there's all money currently is Representative Byrd. I'm so sorry. Building schools, of course, is the best program. We get money to for capital construction for our schools. I know that's a common use of a lot of these funds as well. Okay. Representative Hamburg. Alright. So if but it's the interest of the fund that's used, right, not the fund itself.
Representative Byrd. So the only thing that can be spent is interest and income coming from the fund. Funds the the corpus itself of the PSCF, if I'm getting that, PSPF. It's not even late and I'm getting it wrong. But, the corpus itself cannot be spent. That can only be invested, but income and interest coming off of the fund can be spent. Great. Representative Hammock. And just curious why you say school employees are not active classroom teachers? Representative Byrd. To me, I think they are the same. Right? K. Okay. Well, it's it's district employees,
so it would be it's bigger. It's teachers. It's staff. Right. Representative Hamrick. And then can you explain housing development? I see on your a vote yes on senate bill twenty five one six seven. Talks about down payment assistance in housing development. Could you explain that or a witness? Representative Byrd. So that, I believe, refers to the mortgage piece of this. So the assistance with, obtaining a mortgage when you go to purchase a home. So it's the acquisition of homes. Any additional questions, Rep. Hammer? Representative Caldwell. Thank you, mister chair. Chair Lugans, this question was for you and it this was in your prepared,
remarks. And I I just I didn't get it in my notes, quickly enough. You'd mentioned something about when the house is sold, by someone who uses this program and what they have to pay back. If you wouldn't mind just repeating that. Madam chair. Let's see. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, rep Caldwell. Do you remember where in my comments that was? I was, like, two quarters of the way through. I don't I was what? I said it was, like, three quarters of the way through. I I can I can after you get off the panel, I I can come and clarify it? Mhmm. Madam chair. Yes. Let's we can I'll reread my notes in a little bit later.
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. Madam chair? I I answered the question. Any follow-up, representative Caldwell? Representative Storey? Thank you, mister chair. I I really would like more clarity, in that it throughout the bill, it does talk about school employees again and again and again. It's an oh, I, you know, searched for it on the bill, and, I don't remember now how many times. But, but in the fact sheets, you know, that have been shared, again and again, it talks about the educator first home, the educator first home, addressing housing costs for educators.
Not all school employees are educators. You know, employees can be paras, of course, and they are underpaid. They could be, you know, food service employees. Of course, they are underpaid. They could also you know, school employees are your cabinet. They are your, department heads, department, you know, central staff, superintendents. You know? There's a huge difference between the lowest paid, you know, bus drivers and lunch, food service workers and your top paid superintendents.
They're all school employees, and, I would feel better if we knew what this is supposed to be focused on because the bill gives the whole gamut. Representative Byrd. Thank you, mister chair. So in service of our state's need to recruit and retain talent all throughout our school districts, whether it's your superintendent or if it's your bus driver or food service worker, we we do want to capture school employees because I I don't think anybody working in a school district,
is making a ton of money and, not not needing what we've got right now. But, to answer your question and be more direct, if you look at page 10, the definition of public school employee is laid out on lines 19 through 22, which means any employee of a Colorado school district, charter school, institute, charter school, board of cooperative educational services, or innovation zone, rather. So, we are intending to be comprehensive. As far as, income limits and such, I guess I would just ask that you reserve those questions for our witnesses.
I think they can dive deeper into that if you have concerns about that. But, just to be more clear about who is the comprehensiveness of what that definition is, that's where that is in the bill. Representative or madam chair. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you rep Storey. I also just wanna add on that we did add amendments, that this is for first time homebuyers and for their primary residence only in order to qualify for a mortgage. And so I I certainly, at least at the school districts that I have taught at, I would say the majority of the first time homebuyers are either,
you know, paraprofessionals, newer teachers, younger teachers, bus drivers, not necessarily like, the the superintendents that I have historically worked with, are not first time homebuyers. Representative Story. Nonetheless, the fact sheets that are being passed around, it it talks about educator first home, and an educator is an educator, you know, not necessarily somebody in the central staff. So it it is confusing. And then, I I appreciate, you sharing about the school permanent fund, the public school permanent fund, to be, utilized to benefit kids in schools,
and only the interest and income can be spent. You mentioned best grants. But I'm just curious what other ways, specific ways, not in general, to benefits kids in schools, but specifically, you know, what has that permanent fund been or is it being used for, you know, more specifically? Just how has it been used in the past and, to benefit kids in schools? Representative Byrd. Thank you, mister chair. And representative Story, I would direct that question to our witnesses. Okay. Thank you. Representative Garcia Sander.
Thank you, mister chair. And, this is another question, I think, for our illustrious JBC member. I am curious, since this is such a new, idea to me, I guess, I'm curious about the long term second and third order effects of this. I think this is a very noble cause, but I'm also wondering, down the road, will we be looking at legislation to support other, helping professions such as our, EMT our EMS workers, our, other essential workers, nurses, down the road, could this open up the, the possibility for that?
Representative Byrd. Thank you, mister chair. No. Because the permanent school, oh, good grief. This fund, we're just gonna use the fund, must be used to benefit kids in our schools. It's it is reserved and the whole the constitutional purpose and restriction on this is that it must be used to benefit our our system of education and our kids. Representative Johnson. Thank you, mister, chair. Thank you, sponsors. My question, is this gonna take away funds from section eight, housing development grant funds at all?
Looking at some of these things, just worried that it might take away from those fund and redirect. Representative Byrd. Thank you, mister chair. No. No. This is this is, more capital in the market to purchase, debt issuances that are being made to fund construction of housing. So it wouldn't compete in any way. If anything, this helps stimulate available capital in the market for supply. Alright. Seeing no further questions, we will move on to our witness testimony phase. We will start with, our first panel. We have, Efren Garcia,
Megan Raines, Jonathan Feiner, and doctor Horton. And are we still missing this will be Megan Jonathan Feiner? Efren Gautressee is not here, it looks like. So we will go to, Geralyn Francis. Do we have we have them? Okay. Alright. So we will start, from my left to my right. Please state your name, for the record. Welcome to education, and you have two minutes. The world's tiniest button. I think I cannot find it. Okay. Good morning, mister chair and members of the committee. My name is doctor Jamita Horton, and I serve as the executive director of Teach Plus Colorado,
and I'm a former kindergarten teacher. Teach Plus Colorado is an organization committed to empowering educators to understand, elevate, and advocate for the issues that impact their classrooms, their communities, and their lives. Normally, I'd have a teacher sitting here beside me sharing their story directly. But today, they're in classrooms teaching phonics, math, or overseeing standardized testing. So you're left with me. Here to represent their voices, their experiences, and their deep hopes for what this bill, SB twenty five one sixty seven, can make possible. Housing isn't just a policy issue.
It's personal. It's a student who returns to a hotel each night after a house fire because there's no stable home to go to. It's a teacher who's working multiple jobs, grading papers after midnight, delivering groceries after school, and tutoring on the weekends just to afford rent and stay in the profession that they love. But here's the good news. SB twenty five one sixty seven offers a solution. This bill can set would set aside a portion of the schools of the state school fund to invest directly in housing for educators and school staff. What does this mean in real terms? It means helping educators across Colorado become homeowners in the very communities that they teach,
allowing them to plant roots, stay in the classroom, and thrive. This isn't just a big city e issue either. In rural districts, I know educators who have had to leave the profession entirely because home ownership was out of reach in mountain towns, and districts are slowly turning into landlords just to keep staff. This bill meets those real world challenges with real world issues. Many educators carry the loss of the American dream they saw their parents experience, doing everything right and still struggling for stability. But with this bill, we can we have a chance to start to make a change. Senate bill twenty five one sixty seven is more than just a housing bill.
It's a way to keep great educators in the classroom and to show them they're valued. I vote I ask you to say yes to senate bill twenty five one sixty seven. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to miss Raines. Welcome back to education. You have two minutes. Thank you very much, mister chair. My name is Megan Raines. I am the director of government affairs for the Colorado Education Association, which represents nearly 40,000 members across the state. Today, I also ideally would have an educator to tell their story in front of you. But as, the previous witness said,
they are in the classroom. But I do have a letter from, one of our members, that I'd like to to start with. So it says, members of the House Education Committee, on behalf of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association and CEA, I'm writing to express our strong support for SB twenty five one sixty seven. As an organization dedicated to supporting educators and ensuring strong, stable communities, we recognize the urgent need for policies that make housing more accessible and affordable for teachers and school staff across our state.
Two years ago, I sat before this legislature for a different housing bill and told the stories of two educators in Colorado, Amy Soukup in Denver and Taylor Davis and Jeffco Schools. Excellent educators feeling like they'd have to make the choice of either leaving the profession or leaving the state because of the rising house, rising cost of housing in Colorado. Amy Soukup, my former colleague, left the profession last year, and Taylor Davis, a fellow member, left the state to teach elsewhere. I send this message to legislators again. Colorado is losing its educators.
In many cases, given low wages and the unattainable cost of a home, we aren't even giving new teachers the chance to get started. This bill provides our state with the opportunity to provide more homes for educators to prevent this from happening year after year. If we are to educate, lead, and protect the children of this state, the next generation of Coloradans, then Colorado must ensure its teachers have homes in the communities they serve. Sincerely, Alex Nelson. I think that is says a lot. I would also just state that in our most recent survey of members,
nearly half of all teachers say that they cannot afford a home in this state, and 62% of, our ESP members say that they struggle to afford housing on a monthly basis. So thank you. Thank you very much. We'll go on to mister Feiner. Welcome to education. Press the world's tiny spud and you have two minutes. Thanks, mister chair. Appreciate you. Thank you committee members for the chance to testify today. My name is Jonathan Feiner, vice president of Reddy Colorado, where we believe that every student deserves an excellent education, and that is why I'm here supporting senate bill twenty five one sixty seven today.
Ready Colorado supports SB one sixty seven largely because of the innovative, approach to utilizing state funds for more impactful investments that will benefit Colorado educators. As we know, the average salary in Colorado for teachers is about 60,000. What often goes unmentioned though is that charter school teachers on average make 15% less due to various cost drivers. Fewer than 20% of Colorado of homes in Colorado are valued at prices affordable for teachers earning the average salary in their district. SB one sixty seven shows that we can be thoughtful and strategic as a state.
We can leverage existing funds in ways that deeply and directly benefit Colorado educators. And SB one sixty seven leverages existing resources within the constitutional framework with the benefit of helping educator educators, including charter school teachers who live in the communities in which they teach. For that reason, I respectfully ask for a yes vote today on SB one sixty seven. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll now move online to miss Geralyn Francis. Welcome to Education. Please unmute yourself, and you have two minutes. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Jerilyn Francis. I am the chief communications and community partnerships officer for CHFA,
the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, testifying in a support position on senate bill one sixty seven. CHFA is a statewide investor in affordable housing with a fifty year track record of supporting affordable homeownership through fixed rate mortgage loan products paired with down payment assistance. Last year, CHAF invested over 2,000,000,000 in first mortgage loans and down payment assistance to support over 5,000 Colorado homebuyers, 92% of which were first time buyers. As of the March, we've been servicing a two a $12,200,000,000
portfolio supporting over forty thousand first lien loans. We are very excited about the opportunity to expand our current program offerings to allow for our first mortgage loans to be paired with the shared equity down payment assistance homeownership program that is created in senate bill one sixty seven, supporting a very critical job sector of public school employees in our state. This new resource will be made available through CHFA's statewide participating lender network. And to some of the questions earlier representative, we have over a 40 participating lenders,
statewide who will make these resources available to con, prospective homebuyers who are interested in utilizing them for their home purchase. Based on our analysis, this offering will increase borrowers' purchasing power by reducing monthly mortgage payments, potentially eliminating the need for mortgage insurance, and positioning both borrowers and the permanent fund investment board with a strong return on their investment. We are grateful for the collaboration and dialogue with the sponsors proponents in the Colorado State Treasurer's Office and the opportunity to serve as program fund manager for the shared
equity down payment assistance. We look forward to bringing this resource to support public school employees. In addition, specific to the AMIs that may be supported, again, this down payment assistant resource will be paired with Chappas First Mortgage Loans and aligning with our AMI requirements, which is a maximum right now of a hundred and $62,960. Again, that's a maximum, so cap on that, which is a 40% of AMI. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for this panel of witnesses? Representative Phillips. Thank you. My question is for Chafa.
What's, I I need because I'm so excited about this. What's the outreach? Meaning, how do how do teachers find out that they can do this? Who's that directed towards, representative? Chafa. And I'm sorry. I can't read the name. I wanna touch it and make it bigger. Well, hold miss Francis. Miss Francis. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, representative Phillips. We we are equally excited. So so let me share a little bit about how we do our our normal engagement and then, activities that we're contemplating specific for this unique market. So we directly, market our programs to our participating lender network and other lenders across the state who
might want to engage with us by becoming a participating lender. We also maintain active engagement in marketing with the real estate, and realtor professional community. Those two networks are our log largest referral entity. In addition, because of the very unique and defined market that this opportunity, presents, We do already, but we'll further, outreach to, public school districts, public school employee network bases to make sure that they're aware of this unique program offering, also. So thank you. In addition, we we do, consumer advertising as well through traditional outlet forms.
Representative Hamrick. Thank you, miss Soucher. This is also for, the CHFA representative. Couple of questions. One is, how will you decide who actually gets a loan from this pool of applicants? Miss Francis. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for the question. So our resources are in the homeownership space. They are available, continuously. So, individual buyers as they are, contemplating per becoming a a homeowner, they work with our network of participating lenders, go through the origination underwriting process with them, and close the loan with them,
and then we come in and purchase that. So it is not a competition, I guess, is, is another way to say it. It is available, just generally and openly out in community. Representative Hartzick. Thank you, mister chair. And for miss Francis Cerfichefa. So question. You talked about marketing and building and then looking at the income. So we've already identified that the teachers can't afford the homes that the average market's out there. So this program and policy is designed to fix that. So we don't get ourselves in the situation that we did the government in o eight where the government pushed a lot of these loans out and then people couldn't
afford the housing. How is this going to mitigate that? Miss Francis. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for the question. Very important question. What the shared equity down payment assistance will provide is a high percent of down payment assistance that helps, maximize the purchasing power, for the borrowers. So, again, this helps them cover those upfront costs so that they can afford homeownership. Oftentimes, what we hear from our consumers is they are paying more in rent than they would be paying for a mortgage. It's just that they need those upfront costs,
that extra boost to help get into the home. So we will be providing a robust down payment assistance to provide that entry, to help build immediate equity for them in that home. And, again, depending on the size of the down payment that the assistance that the borrower utilizes could potentially also save them additional capital by mitigating the need for mortgage insurance. I will say across all of our portfolio of loans, Chapa has been very successful in in managing risk in the market. Right now, our portfolio has less than 1% foreclosure rate,
0.81 to be exact. We also, I will say, really pride ourselves on homebuyer education. So before any borrower, receives a loan through our programs, we require and will pay for them to attend a free homebuyer education class that helps go over some of the fundamentals such as budgeting, setting aside resources for when that furnace goes out, making sure that, they're familiar with all the terms and the jargon. Again, knowing that our base our customer base are first time homebuyers, and we have found that pairing of homebuyer education along with the,
the structure of the, program offerings that we provide to be very successful in positioning, our customers for, long term sustainability. Thank you for the question. Representative Hartzak. Thank you, mister chair. Last question. So when you talk about avoiding mortgage insurance, maybe provide me update if I'm wrong here, but last time I checked, you need to put 20% down to avoid the mortgage insurance on that. How, I mean, how are we doing this, or how staff are planning on doing that with the teachers when we're looking at the the capital? I'll be if to get the 20% down, to avoid the mortgage insurance and keep them under that baseline so they can afford
it when they don't end upside down, what's the the safety so we, again, don't end up in the fiasco that we did of o eight? Miss Francis? Thank you, mister chair. Thank you. So we we provide both FHA insured products and conventional insured products. So it could be that the down payment assistance will range anywhere from $10.15, 20 percent. So those are all structures we're looking at, again, to try and maximize the resources available to us while also providing a safe and secure product for the borrower and and options. Representative Caldwell. Thank you, mister Cherry. My question is for Chaffa as as well.
And I I believe this was said in the the, opening of the bill. But so let's scenario, teacher gets this assistance, sells the house four years later. Is there are they required at closing? Let's say they make a profit on the home to return any of this assistance or or not. Miss Francis. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for the question. Yes. So the way that the shared equity down, payment, structure is is contemplated is that at the time of, refinance or at the time that the borrower sells decides to sell the home,
then they pay back the down payment assistance that they were provided, and then there is a shared equity portion. For the down payment assistance. But, instead, there is the for the down payment assistance, but, instead, there is the repayment of the principal and the payment of the shared equity again at time of sale or refinance. Representative Caldwell. Thank you for that answer, ma'am. And then, just kind of a follow-up. What happens is there any, like, safeguards if,
let's say, a a teacher moves to a district, buys a home, and then quits teaching six months later, are they still are are they still receiving assistance, or do they have to pay it back or anything like that? Miss Francis. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you. The the, verification of employment will be at the time that the loan is made, so there's not an ongoing requirement to, retain employment. We don't want teachers to lose their house because they might change their jobs. So it will be at the time that the that the loan is made.
Thank you. Representative Johnson. Representative, we've got to see a Sander. Actually, I'll ask kind of a follow-up. What if they leave the profession of teaching? What if they're like, you know what? I can make more money as a private equity investor. I'm done with teaching. I just got this loan. I got assistance for it. Did my one year. I'm out. What happens then? Miss Francis? Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for the question. Again, no requirement in the statute that, of of anything beyond that time, at which the loan is made. Seeing no further questions,
thank you all for your time, and your patience this morning. I will call up our next, panel of witnesses. We'll do one last call for, Efren Garcia, Leah Marvin Riley, and Zach Martinez. And do we have, senator Hudak online? Alright. We'll call up senator Hudak for questions only. So we will start from, my left to my right. We'll start with miss Marvin Riley. Welcome to education. You have two minutes. Thank you, mister chair. Hi, members of the committee. My name is Leah Marvin Riley. I'm the policy director for the Colorado Department of Treasury,
and we're neutral on Senate Bill twenty five one sixty seven. We appreciate the intent behind this bill. As with any complex legislation, a great deal of work has gone on behind the scenes, and we appreciate the dialogue with the stakeholders. We support many of the bill's goals, particularly the focus on ensuring the permanent fund benefits Coloradans for generations to come. The permanent fund was created with a clear constitutional mandate to preserve its principle, ensuring that it continues to generate income for public education without depleting its core assets. It is constitutionally inviolate,
meaning the general fund is required to make up any losses the fund incurs. By investing in local projects like affordable housing for teachers, we can foster economic opportunities that strengthen communities while generating returns to benefit the state. These investments are consistent with the fund's goals ensuring that we grow the state's wealth in ways that directly benefit our schools and the well-being of Colorado school kids. As you know, the Department of Treasury is responsible for managing the state's investments and when it be when it comes to making decisions about how to handle taxpayer dollars,
we're very careful about ensuring that every action is responsible, transparent, and in line with our statutory and constitutional requirements. In addition, we believe we should avoid unnecessary risk to the investments and portfolios we manage through specific investment targets and mandates. With that in mind, our neutrality was contingent on several amendments that were passed in the senate. When we lock investment decisions into specific targets, we limit our ability to adjust to changing economic conditions. Financial markets can be unpredictable and volatile, especially recently, and it's critical that we preserve the flexibility to adapt to those shifts to safeguard
investments. We're optimistic that we can move forward in a way that maintains the needed flexibility while still achieving the important goals of this bill. And I'm grateful for the opportunities to speak with you today and happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to mister Martinez. Welcome to education, and, you have two minutes. Thank you, chair. Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of of Senate Bill one sixty seven. My name is Zach Martinez. I'm the director of policy at Gary Advocacy, a Colorado based organization committed to improving economic well-being of Colorado's families. Housing is un unaffordable in Colorado.
I know the committee members hear this constantly, but it's also important to know that the struggles of the affordability hit public education workforce even harder. Currently, only about 20% of homes in Colorado are for affordable for an educator making a median salary in their district. In some districts, it's worse, like Douglas County, Jefferson County, Briers, Windsor, just to name a few. And the problem is getting worse as inflation and interest rates increase at a pace much faster than educator salaries. Senate bill one sixty seven will help public school employees access existing market rate housing but with more affordable monthly payments on a home of $500,000
that we're talking about saving an educator or sorry, a public school employee a hundred $1,000 per month. We know this work product works because our organization operates the Deerfield Fund, a program that helps families in the metro area purchase their first home using this this model. The evidence is clear that when public school employees own a home in the community they teach, they're they're more likely to teach longer, creating continuity in our schools and in our classrooms. And equally as important to that is the opportunity to help public school employees build long term wealth through the critical work that they do. Our economy economy is built on building wealth through homeownership.
On average, homeowners have 40 times more wealth than renters, and that gap is increasing. By helping public school employees access homeownership, we can start them on a path to long term wealth. Simultaneously, this is a win for the public school permanent fund. It's estimated this program will return on average around 7% annually, outpacing the current average performance while helping while ensuring the dollars are invested inside of Colorado's borders. The bill truly is a win win for Colorado for education and for the long term health of the Public School Permanent Fund. I strongly encourage you all to vote yes,
and I'm happy to answer questions if people still have them. Thank you very much. And we have senator Hudak online for questions only. So we will start our ten minutes for our questions. Representative Story. Thank you, mister chair. I do have a couple of questions, and I appreciate you both presenting today. For miss Marvin, I appreciate, you know, sharing the sort of foundation, relative to the treasurer's office and the caution and the need to, ensure that you're preserving, you know, the intent of the permanent fund,
obviously, and and that the bill still allows for some flexibility. But I I am curious about the public school permanent fund and its, you know, other uses that it has been utilized, for. And, specifically, is it by by this bill coming into play? Is that And reducing amounts that can be utilized for other purposes that are already in play? Who'd like to answer that? Yep. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you,
representative Story. So there's a little flowchart I can send you after this, but the state land board income flows both both to the best COPs and to the permanent fund. So the permanent fund is made up of state land board income The we invest that, and this bill is talking about how we're allowed to invest portions of the permanent fund. The interest and income that we earn on the permanent fund is split between two things. It either goes to best grants for k 12 schools or to the state education
fund. So $11,000,000 goes to the state ed fund, and then the rest goes to the best grants. This bill is saying some portion, it's around 300,000,000 plus of this permanent fund can be invested back in Colorado in this homeownership program and potential other community investment types prod types of products. So it shouldn't have much of an impact on where the money is flowing out of the fund. It's just changing what we're allowed to invest it in. The only difference that it would make is if the returns on these new investments
are significantly lower than what we're currently earning. That could reduce income. But as you've heard, the expectation is that it would be about the same return that we're getting now. Representative Story. Okay. So I don't know how much from the state land trust funds is going into into best and then into the permanent fund. And then within the permanent fund, some goes to best. And the, school education fund, you said $11,000,000 for the, school education fund, but or state education fund. I'm sorry. But then this is talking about,
you know, 6% of the, it says school fund. Are we really talking about the permanent fund? This is a fact sheet, I'm sorry, that I'm staring at. But it talks about a hundred million dollars by 2028 and rising to 12% or $200,000,000 by 2030. So I assume that's collectively $200,000,000 by the time you hit 2030. So I'm just I'm just trying to figure out if now you're gonna have three. The pie is gonna be divided into three portions. Is that portion
which is overriding another? Like, does does something get paid out first and then the other two have what's left? Or, like, just trying to figure out how this is gonna work. Mister Martinez. Unless you would like to go here. Can I transfer you? Miss Marvin Riley. Okay. Thank you, mister chair. So the 300,000,000, the 6%, and then 12%, that is a portfolio created within the permanent fund. So it's telling us to invest a certain amount of money from the fund in this program.
We'll get a return on that investment, and whatever interest we earned will go to those two buckets, the best grants and the state ed fund. So this is not adding a third bucket at the end. It's changing how we invest the a portion of the permanent fund. And like I said, it hopefully won't have much impact on the amount of money flowing to those two other priorities. I'll also just add it's about 40,000,000 going straight from the state land board to the best COP section. And I did email you a chart, and it can help to look at the diagram.
But, yeah, maybe mister Martinez wants to add to that. Mister Martinez. Thank you, chair. I think that's spot on. Really, it's just the the funds that are being invested, which are currently invested in lots of things that include mortgage backed securities, municipal bonds, things similar to what we're saying we're gonna invest in, out of the community investment portfolio. But instead of investing them in mortgage backed securities that are spread out all across the country or municipal bonds that are invested, in other states, let's make sure we're investing them in Colorado. And then the returns from the the that fund,
which we expect same things that you're mentioning, which is the best program and the funding. Okay. And I believe the story. Thank you, mister chair. I believe senator Hudak also would like to respond. Senator Hudak. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. So I just need to clarify oh, by the way, I'm speaking as myself. I'm a former member of the state board of education that did did a lot with, the school trust lands and how they're invested and how they generate income. And also PTA because the national PTA
started a group called Advocates for School Trust Lands because most states have a school land trust. And every state manages their own in their own way. The issue here is the permanent fund, which no money can ever come out of, the hope is that it will grow and build and generate interest. And the interest is what's used for BEST and other purposes. And by the way, BEST gets funds from other places as well.
It gets money from the leases on the school trust lands, which is a side issue. The issue with this bill is how to increase the amount of interest generated by the permanent fund. And so, and the mission of this bill is to investing the money benefit Colorado educators. So the purpose is to generate additional interest through investments of the fund in this form of housing.
And, as the other witness just explained, there are other ways that the permanent fund is invested. Basically, the permanent fund investment has to be very, very conservative. It can't be risky because you're risking, generating money for our public schools in Colorado. So, what you have to decide with this bill is whether you think this form of investment is safe enough, A, and B, will actually generate more money in the fund.
And if the answer is no to those questions, then you should not do this. PTA has no position on this bill. Thank you. Representative Hamrick. Thanks. This could be for, the the person from the treasury, but all of you are welcome to answer. There's some concern that as we continue to allow the permanent fund to make more and more below market investments that defeats the entire purpose of this funding. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Miss Barb and Riley. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, representative.
We wanna make sure that we're balancing any investments that could be a lower than market rate return with other investments that are at market rate or above. It is true that if there's a realized loss, which is very uncommon, but if there's a realized loss in this fund, the general assembly is on the hook. They have I think this bill changes it from eighteen to twenty four months to make that up. So both the board and the treasury are, mindful of making sure that we're balancing any community investments that could have a below
market rate with enough of additional investments that we don't have any realized losses. Representative Hamrick. Are these investments more high risk? Mister Riley. Thank you, mister chair. I don't know the answer to that. I know that the proponents are saying that this is an expected 7% rate of return, which if that's true, that's not a higher risk, than what we're currently or it's not a lower rate than what we're currently earning. But as I said, it really anything like this needs to be balanced with the enough diversity of what
we're investing in. Representative Hamrick. Thank you, mister chair. Is there some kind of financial trigger in the bill that if the investments fall below a certain amount as far as interest earned that it stops? Miss Marvin Riley. Thank you, mister chair. I believe mister Martinez might know that better, but I know we worked on that in the senate, and we added some some guardrails. Mister Martinez. Thank you, chair. Yes. So, to your first question, I have a phone of friends. Very lucky. Thanks, Technology. The chatbot estimates that the return on investment on this product is gonna be between, 3443% over the time frame on average of seven year holding.
So that's a a seven year annualized. It's, like, obviously less than that. And then on the trigger, what we decided what we landed on, through negotiations with lots of partners was that we wanted to authorize the investment board to have control over the trigger. So the way it will work is the investment board, at any time after the creation of the product, can turn it off with six months notice. Representative Hammock. And where is the investment board located? Mister Motor miss Marvin Riley. Thank you, mister chair. The board was created in legislation in 2016. It's chaired by the state treasurer,
and the treasurer appoints the five members of the board, except for the chair of the state land board is also on it. So they meet quarterly, and, yeah, that's it. Representative Hartzick. Thank you, mister chair, whoever wants to answer. So we get it. It's good for the teachers. The teachers get in, they buy their house, they're there, then they move on. We've we've heard this question asked a lot. Do you have any, empirical data from any other states or any place that this has been implemented? What is the the ROI coming back to? In essence, the community and then specifically the schools and the the the teaching profession?
Because if we're if the initial target is the teachers, but then some of them move on, do do we have any any data that shows we retain more? Does it make a difference? Do you have anything like that at all? Mister Motor Thinas. Thank you, chair. Representative, there is, a couple items that we have that I don't have physically with me right now. Like, I I can send them to you, around retention specifically. And then I think the expectation based off of a a bunch of work, like, like miss Francis mentioned, their TAFA operates billions of dollars portfolio of mortgages.
They have a lot of data around turnover of housing, for first time homebuyers, and they estimate that someone holds their first home for an average about seven years. So we do expect money to flow back into the portfolio and then be made available for future teachers as well, so it won't be just like a a one time opportunity. Seeing no further questions, thank you for your time, and your patience this morning. And we will also do one last call, for anybody that would like to testify on or against, senate bill one sixty seven, please come forward. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed.
Bill sponsors. Do you have any amendments? Are there any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Representative Byrd. Thank you, mister chair and members of the committee. Thank you for your robust, conversation and your really thoughtful questions. I appreciate it. I just will conclude by saying I think this bill creates an excellent opportunity for Colorado to do something meaningful, to help educators decide to maybe I don't know if it will get them to come into the profession, but at least it takes away one of those major costs that,
often dissuades people from remaining in the profession and creating a lot of hardship for people to accept, what sometimes are lower salaries in exchange for doing some of the most important work that people do in our state. And, this is a a small and very meaningful way I think our state can help these good people remain, doing doing the good work for our kids and our communities. So please vote yes. Madam chair. Thank you, mister chair and members of the education committee. In in this modern age, teaching and housing is continuously linked.
And it we know that the the impact that lack of housing has on teacher retention, and I am a rural legislator. I see this acutely in our rural areas where people are having to leave because they teachers are having to leave, educators are having to leave because they cannot afford to stay in our communities. I believe that Colorado should be invested in Colorado, and that's what this bill does. I ask for a yes vote on senate bill one sixty seven. And with that, I move senate bill one sixty seven to the Appropriations Committee with a favorable recommendation. Second. There's a motion and a second on the table.
Any closing comments from the committee? Representative Story. Thank you, mister chair. And, I appreciate the effort and the work that's gone into it and appreciate that there, were some changes in the senate to, you you know, through the treasurer's office to get them in a better place. That makes me feel better too. I do, I do see on our committee sheet that, this bill is supposed to be routed to appropriations, but I wonder if it makes sense for it to be routed to finance, before it goes to appropriations. And, anyway, so those would be my comments.
I think that would be a good plan. Thank you, representative Story. I don't believe that we can route that to, finance. At this time, it has to go through appropriations. Yeah. Yeah. So we will have it still, routing to appropriations for today. Would you like to have any other concluding comments? Representative Smith. Thank you, mister chair. I am delighted that this has come forward. You know, I was on the school board for Boulder Valley, and, Boulder County has been, you know, the poster child for teachers not being able to afford where they live, and they might have to commute from Brighton or faraway places.
And I really like the 25% rural, component. The one thing and this is not anything that can you know, the the bill would address, but Boulder Valley, the land is expensive. The school board had land, and we were gonna partner with Habitat for Humanity, And the neighbors absolutely went bananas, and so we had to back off from that. And, you know, that's that's a different issue, but I just hope with this that we don't get the same sort of pushback from community members.
I'm an enthusiastic yes on this, though. Representative Phillips. Thank you. It's my first session, and I learned this really cool thing to say in this situation. Good bill. Vote yes. Representative Caldwell. Thank you, mister chair. And and thank you, to the sponsors. Yeah. I to be honest, I was, like, back and forth on this, bill initially. I've I've done a lot of, stakeholdering over the last couple days. And, I think senator I believe it's Haddock. I believe I'm pronouncing her name correctly, who testified earlier. Hudak. Sorry. Senator Hudak. She she asked the question that really kind of got me to where I am
and and I am a yes, which was the question was is, you know, we're we're already investing this money. And is this the type of investment that we should be doing, investing in our our own communities and and helping our our educators as opposed to what else we would be doing, which is maybe investing this in other communities outside of the state of Colorado? And so then it kind of you look at the the risk of it. And from all the numbers that I've heard, throughout the testimony and and the statistics I've looked at, it this seems like a safe investment. So we're investing in our community.
We're helping our educators. As a school board member myself, I can tell you, the retention problem that we have is not because educators don't like being educators. It's because they have a hard time being able to afford where they're, working at. And, I have three school districts, in house district 20, and they are in the kind of higher end as far as housing goes. And so, again, it it comes back to if if we're already investing this money, why not be investing it in our state, in our communities, and helping our people,
as opposed to investing it, you know, somewhere else. So, for that reason, those reasons, I'll be a yes, and I appreciate it very much. Hey, Mel Bacon. Thank you. I wanna thank everyone who's worked on this. I just what I'd be curious about is seeing how this is going, not just on the portfolio base. I think this is a long term question for us for a lot of reasons, but I'd also like to see where the projects are. I've always advocated that there be a Denverite on this committee. And the reason why is a lot of us in our community pay into these pots,
but we don't get it back. We don't get best money, but our neighbors put into that pot. Right? And when we've been talking about housing, those of us who've been talking about housing for quite some time, Denver has its own version of this. So we're all happy to support investments across the state, but there are some communities that may not that I'd like to understand who benefits from this. I I know. So I think that was part of the discussion early on, part of this. And as we're kind of laying record on this,
this is this is why I'm supporting the bill. With the conversation about teacher housing, for many of us, we know this has been happening for quite some time, but the spaces that are making strides, are getting particular supports that different districts are not. And I think as we continue these conversations, I think this bill sets us up in a good way around this topic that I think this landscape's been looking for in the last couple of years. And it's probably because it's public investment versus each district trying to figure out their
own funding sources. Right? And so I'm, again, gonna support the bill today for those who are working the project for the treasurer's office. This is a curiosity that I think some of us will have over time is to manage is to understanding what is earning us money, who is it from, and and who is it benefiting as we talk about supporting teachers in the state. We wanna know, like, actually what that means and and where it's going. So thank you all for your work on this bill. Greatly appreciate it.
And again, looking forward to what this has done for this the moving forward with the steps of figuring out how districts in the state can support teaching teacher housing. Representative Johnson. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, sponsors. Honestly, don't know where I'm at with this bill. I love the intent of the bill. I love the intent of the 25% going rural. I very much am a, a one who doubts, though, until I see it hard line and paper. That intent and impact in Colorado does not always equal what we think it should here, and then it's implemented. Struggling on that safety clause as well.
There's just there's a whole bunch of unknowns I don't know, but I love the the idea of this. So I I don't know where I'm at, but I do wanna say that I like the I love the passion behind this and, bring it forward. The only thing on the record too is when we mess with housing, it's so volatile. Like, everywhere that if we're helping with teachers, how does that skew the market for first responders or others trying to get into the market? Especially in rural Colorado, we have, very limited options, and we've seen, you know, this everywhere. If we help with one area, it takes away from another area. So I'm very much wanting to see how this will help some,
but how is it gonna hurt others. And so I love the intent. I don't know where I'm at on this, but I I just wanna say thank you for, starting the conversation. Representative Hamrick. Thanks, mister chair. Thank you for bringing the bill. It's definitely something that we need. I do have a couple of concerns. I'll be yes on the on the bill, but I have a couple of concerns about maybe more guardrails about teachers that have been in the classroom for x amount of years so that you know that someone that's is in the teaching profession gets a loan, gets a house, and then they leave the teaching profession within a year. I'm not I'm not I'm a fan of that. So, also, the bill was sold as helping educators,
teachers, and it's more than that. So I would love some kind of, better definitions about and more specific definitions about, who, can apply. But other than that, I'll be yes. Seeing no further comments, mister Beck, will you please call the roll? Representatives Aiken? Yes. Bradfield? Yes. Caldwell? Yes. Garcia Sander? Yes. For today. Wilkerson? Yes. Amrick? Yes. Hartzook? Yes. Johnson? No for today. Phillips? Yes. Smith? Yes. Story? Yes. With reservations. Lukens? Yes. Mister chair? Yes. The pass is eleven to one.
You're off to appropriations. So we will now be rehearing, the, action only for Senate Bill twenty five twenty seven. We have our bill sponsors outside of the door. Okay. So earlier, when we laid over, what's the 27. Senate bill 20, senate bill 27, fraction only, we were just slaying it over fraction only for thirty minutes. Mhmm. Okay. So we will reopen senate bill 27, and we are in the amendment phase. I understand you have amendments. Rep Joseph. Yes. Thank you, madam chair.
So during the break, I've had the opportunity to talk to, some of the members of the committee. I just wanted to put it on the record that they were as part of the conversation, the makeup of the, committee, of the working group. Thank you so much. We will go back to the drawing board and, reformulate some of the the ways the appointments are made because we understand that it is more important that, those who are most affected have that opportunity as well and the experts to be part of the working group as opposed to people who are in this building doing
it because we're not the expert. And I welcome that feedback when it was given to me. So that's where we are, and, also, we do have two amendments. I would say we adapt these amendments so that when we go back, everything that's supposed to be in the bill is in the bill. And then also another comment that I wanted to make, to rep story's comment about the office. The office is the office of school safety. Is yes. So I just wanted to make that comment. And I'll stop right there,
madam chair, and let me know how you would like us to move when it comes to the amendments. Which amendment do you wanna start with? We can start with l seven. Okay. Mhmm. Mister vice chair is gone. Who would like can someone move the amendment? Rep Smith. I moved. I move, l seven, you said, Joseph? L zero zero seven to senate bill 27. Second. Second. I think it was seconded by Bacon first. Okay. Rep Joseph. Thank you, madam chair. And I'll seven. Thank you, madam chair. This amendment was already approved by the senate. And my understanding is there was a glitch according to the drafter,
and it didn't make it on the bill. And she just, brought it to us to be amended in the house. Are there any questions about l seven? Are there any objections to l seven? Saying none, l seven is adopted. L eight, Rep Smith. I move l zero zero eight to senate bill 27. Second. Seconded by vice chair Martinez, Rep Gonzales. Thank you, madam chair. So what we have here is, I know it's very rare, a petition clause. So as mentioned was earlier, we had a safety clause in senate bill 27. We are now amending it to strike that and to include a petition clause on
this bill. Obviously, you know, we hear talks about putting petition clauses on some of these policies. So this amendment, we would like to be, pushed into senate bill 27. Are there any questions about l eight? Are there any objections to l eight? Seeing none, l eight is adopted. Are there any other amendments, bill sponsors? No, madam chair. Are there any other amendments, committee? Rep Phillips. We put somebody a special education person on the committee. We that's one of the things we talked about. Rep Joseph? Thank you, madam chair. That was one of the conversation that,
we had earlier with rep's story concerning changing some of the makeup. And, yes, we agree that we will go back and draft that particular language to add a special ed, educator as part of a member of the committee. And, also, we I did write down some of the list of the other people that we will be adding, but I did say that Rep Story and I and senator Marshman and the drafter should just meet together and have that conversation because I didn't wanna get it wrong. Are there any other amendments? Seeing none,
the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Pep Gonzalez. Thank you, madam chair. Again, so this I just wanna reiterate that this does not pull general funds. This does not impact Tabor. This relies solely on gift grants and donations, and this is not mandating that school districts take this information. It's not requiring them to do so. This just serves as a recommendation on policies put in place. As you know, information is always changing. Protocols are in place and, you know, there are some rural urban concerns. So we wanna make sure that we provide resources for those school districts who do
not have them to take it upon themselves to have this information on them to make sure that they have safe schools. So I encourage you and I vote. Yep. Joseph. Thank you, madam chair. I yes. I'll just add again as you've heard from Michael Prime, the bill makes recommend how school can best it creates a working group that recommends how school can best conduct trauma and informed drills and emergency responses, determine appropriate training and frequency for school personnel, advise on parental communication strategies regarding drills,
and provide resources for school to implement trauma enforced practices, and we ask for a yes vote. Thank you. Okay. With that, we'll move the bill and then do closing comments from the committee. Vice Chair Martinez. I move Senate Bill twenty five twenty seven to finance with the favorable recommendation. As amended. As amended. Oh, seconded by rep Bacon. Closing rep Joseph? No. It, our routing says finance. Yeah. Yeah. All my gift grants and donation bills have gone to finance. Okay. So it has been moved and seconded, and I believe it does have to go to finance for the routing memo.
Okay. Closing comments from the committee, rep Garcia Sander. Oh, did someone second it? Rep Bacon seconded it. Okay. Rep Garcia Sander. Thank thank you, madam chair. So school from school principal, school teacher, twenty five years, we have been doing drills, and we have been attentive to our students and parent needs over the years as drills have increased. One of my superintendents said they do 18 drills a year, and that includes the multiple drills for, for potentially, lockdown active shooter type drills.
There's four connected with that, including our severe weather drills and our locally required fire drills. So it's a lot of drills, and, we address trauma informed practices. I referred to it earlier. The Office of School Safety has, it's highlighted in yellow, new overview of emergency drills for parents and guardians, parents and guardians. And it asks, I mean, it covers the topics of why do schools do drills, what are the procedures, how can schools prevent or lessen trauma for students, how can parents and guardians help,
Best practice considerations for armed assailant drills in schools? Possible trauma with school safety drills? Articles on possible trauma with school safety drills addressing that with the American Psychological and Psychologists Institute? Are lockdown drills trauma informed? There's resources there. School lockdowns, the psychological effects on children, there's resources there. How are lockdown drills affecting American kids? Readiness and emergency management for schools, technical center, Trauma Informed Drills, Resources. And these are all available in English and Spanish right now. I anticipate it will be other languages soon.
We address this. I have had students who are frightened of lots of drills, severe weather. I've had students with autism who we address. It's in their IEPs, how we manage handling drills with them. Drills can be behavior triggers. I am concerned about the requirement of notifying parents and saying, you know, we're going to have our fire drill, our emergency safety drill next Tuesday, weather happens. I've had where we've had a stomach virus go through the school, we've got puke in the hallway, and if we're supposed to do that drill at 10:30 and we've got to clean up puke, well, well, it's not going to happen and we may have to just reschedule it for tomorrow.
So, flexibility and life happens. What I'm most concerned about, one of my superintendents, when I messaged to you yesterday, last night about this said, The biggest concern I have in this statement in the legislation is that it states drills cause trauma. This is a broad statement and I would say most drills do not cause trauma. And that is accurate. We really, what I'm most concerned about is we have created a trauma focused society and we need to be focusing on a resiliency focused society. I think that we are doing our kids a disservice on focusing on trauma all
the time instead of focusing on resiliency because life happens, hard things happen. And when we don't focus on resiliency, resilient practices, resiliency, with kids, then they are going to have a harder and harder time dealing with all the little things, all the big things that come up. And so, I do believe this is coming from a really, kindhearted place of, you know, we need to address these, but it has been addressed by the Office of School Safety. It is being addressed by another bill that was referenced earlier, and I really do have an issue with it,
with us continuing to beat the trauma drum when we really should be helping our kids learn and work on resiliency. So, for all those reasons, I'll be a voting voting no. I would like to see some legislation coming forward, addressing resiliency practices for our students and drills. Just a reminder to everyone to please be concise with your comments as well. Rep Johnson. Thank you, madam chair. And very much still wanting to put this on the books for both sponsors. Have not been talked to yet. I would like to talk to you.
There are major concerns, that this is a duplicate effort. This is coming from me, looking at this house bill twenty five eleven seventy three was actually just signed into law by our governor fourteen days ago. It does exactly what this bill says. It is doing a concerning the expanding the role of an advisory board to serve the office school safety, dealing with crisis management, dealing with safety related grant funding. My huge concerns when we do, reinventing the wheel is these grants that we're finding here could have been used to do a holistic effort that we already have in place as opposed to redirecting this somewhere else,
reinventing it, doing more government as the answer as opposed to using the resources we already have. So very much wanna put on the record that, I think this is a duplicate effort, and, this is something we just did through this body. So would love to talk with both sponsors, seeing this, understanding where it's coming from, but would advise that we work with what we have to make it a unified front and not throwing these things everywhere so they can't communicate efficiently for the results that we do want for our kids. I will be a no vote. Bill Krist. Thank you, madam chair. And, I appreciate the bill sponsor's efforts on this,
and I'll be a yes today. I think, it will be and and looking forward to seeing amendments that reflect some of the feedback that was given today before it gets to the floor. I also appreciate the evaluation and focus on the effectiveness of these drills. I think it's important to understand if they actually help protect students when there is an an emergency. And so I I would hope that the task force would explore that, and I really appreciate you bringing this today. Also, I just wanna make a one comment on the focus on trauma.
I I, respectfully disagree with my colleague that when we focus on trauma and dealing with kids' trauma, we build resilient students and kids. And so I think that's incredibly important, and I hope that this task force can enlighten some of that with, regards to drills. Thank you. Representative Hamrick. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, bill sponsors, for bringing the bill. I still have concerns about the members of the work group. I would prefer, as Rep Story has said, that they come from professional organizations that they that you you talk to various groups
and they like CASE and CASB and, Colorado Nurses Association and Mental Health Colorado. And they're the ones that recommend people for the work group not elected officials. So hoping that you'll do that. I mean, yes for now. Rep. Storey. Thank you, madam chair. And, thanks to the bill sponsors. I appreciate the opportunity to have some conversations about, making some adjustments going forward. And I appreciate, your willingness to chat about that and discuss, potential changes. But I I do think that trauma informed
practices and strategies are really important. And I think by and large, in general, our educators and our school district employees, you know, do not know about trauma informed strategies, and not even all therapists and counselors and, you know, specialists are, trained in trauma informed strategies. So, I think, you know, there is an importance there in having that opportunity, going forward to sort of learn about that and be sensitive to those issues and
have real tools in their toolbox when that when they get there. This work group is not gonna provide that, but, there will be that discussion. And I appreciate that, potentially, there will, for sure, be trauma informed specialists on the work group, because that's what the bill's about, and that is, like, a necessity to have multiples of those that can address those, different, categories of school employees and, students. Thank you. Mister Beck, please call the vote.
Representatives Bacon? Yes. Bradfield? Respectfully, no. Caldwell? No. Garcia Sander? No. Gilchrist? Yes. Hamrick? Yes for no. Hartzook? No. Johnson? No. Phillips? Respectfully, yes. Smith? Yes. Story? Yes for no. Martinez? Yes, for today. Adam, chair. Yes. Passes eight to five. That passes eight to five. You're on your way to finance committee. And with that, education committee is adjourned. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Oh, that's real.