---
title: Proposition NN | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 8 of 14
description: Colorado Proposition NN’s impact on TABOR refunds, education funding & future spending, arguments for & against the measure | Links to 2026 ballot measures
---

[What's Up Americans? | Blog](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog)

# [Proposition NN | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 8 of 14](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/proposition-nn-2026-election)

 Written by [Marek Bobik](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik) | Oct 14, 2026, 9:13:09 PM

Should Colorado return excess tax revenue to taxpayers—or keep more of it for schools, children’s programs, and eventually other state priorities?

That is the central question behind **Proposition NN**, which Colorado voters will decide on **November 3, 2026**. The legislature referred the measure to voters through Senate Bill 26-135. Because it changes state statutes rather than the Constitution, it requires a **simple majority** to pass. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes))

The proposal is about both education funding and a lasting change to how much revenue Colorado may retain. Understanding it requires looking beyond the school-funding headline—especially at what happens after the first ten years. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/blue-book))

## What Your Vote Means

### A YES vote

A **YES vote** would authorize Colorado to retain additional revenue that otherwise would be refunded under TABOR, subject to a new, higher limit. It would establish spending requirements for education and children’s programs, with broader legislative discretion after ten years. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/blue-book))

### A NO vote

A **NO vote** would reject these changes and preserve the existing revenue-limit and refund framework. It would not prevent lawmakers from changing education funding through other legislation. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/blue-book))

### What does “any other purposes” mean?

The Blue Book’s short YES description mentions **“any other purposes.”** The timing matters:

| Period | Spending requirements |
| --- | --- |
| **FY 2026–27 through FY 2035–36** | After applicable property-tax reimbursements, money goes to the Children’s Account. Required school-funding increases receive priority; at least half of the account must support K–12 overall. Remaining money supports children’s programs, prioritizing child care, full-day preschool, and school readiness. |
| **FY 2036–37 onward** | Property-tax reimbursements and an ongoing, fixed-dollar K–12 funding amount continue. Remaining money may support other purposes selected by the legislature. |

The initial ten-year restrictions expire; the additional revenue-retention authority does not. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/117533/download))

## Official Ballot Language

The official ballot question emphasizes a two-percent annual increase in K–12 investment for ten years, specified classroom-related uses, a higher revenue-retention limit rather than higher tax rates, and an independent annual audit. The complete question appears in **Section 9 of the official measure text**. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/text-of-measure))

**Not raising tax rates does not mean taxpayers are financially unaffected.** Retaining revenue that otherwise would be refunded leaves taxpayers with less money than they would receive under current law. That distinction is central to the debate. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/05/12/voters-increase-school-funding-tabor/))

## Official Proposition Language: What the Measure Actually Changes

I copied the official proposition language ([Senate Bill 26-135](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/proposition-nn-2026-election?hs_amp=true#senate-bill-26-135)) to the bottom of this blog.

The proposal’s main components include:

- A higher revenue-retention allowance tied to qualifying state education funding.
- A Children’s Account within the General Fund.
- A school-funding increase called the positive factor.
- Restrictions on spending during the first ten years.
- State auditing and local financial-disclosure requirements. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-135?utm_source=openai))

Three details deserve a closer look.

### 1. What other purposes could receive the money—and who decides?

Beginning in **FY 2036–37**, money remaining after the continuing obligations could support purposes outside education or children’s programs. The official analysis does not provide a closed list of eligible uses. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/117533/download))

**The General Assembly would make those decisions through appropriations or other legislation.** Normally:

1. Agencies and the governor submit budget requests.
2. The Joint Budget Committee develops recommendations.
3. The House and Senate consider and pass spending legislation.
4. The governor may approve or veto it, including individual appropriations in the budget bill. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/explorebudget?utm_source=openai))

**Proposition NN does not require a second statewide vote simply to choose those later spending purposes.** Voters would be approving the retention authority now; future allocations would proceed through legislative budgeting, subject to other applicable legal requirements. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/text-of-measure))

### 2. What “current law” requires property-tax reimbursements?

The sentence on printed page 41 of the Blue Book refers to Colorado’s existing **homestead property-tax exemption and reimbursement system**, not a new exemption created by Proposition NN. The analysis identifies qualifying seniors, veterans with disabilities, and Gold Star surviving spouses. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-blue-book-en-accessible.pdf))

The key legal provisions are:

- **Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 3.5:** the constitutional foundation for the exemption and state reimbursement obligation. Official Treasury budget materials identify this authority and its implementing statutes. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/FY2026-27_trefig.pdf?utm_source=openai))
- **C.R.S. § 39-3-207, especially subsection (4):** the reimbursement procedure. County officials report qualifying exemptions and lost revenue; the state treasurer reimburses counties, which distribute the money to affected local governmental entities.
- **C.R.S. § 39-3-209:** permits qualifying reimbursement payments to count toward satisfying the state’s TABOR refund obligation. ([olls.info](https://olls.info/crs/crs2026-title-39.pdf))

In plain English: an eligible homeowner receives a property-tax exemption, local governments collect less, and the state compensates them. Under current law, that compensation can also count as a way of returning excess state revenue. ([olls.info](https://olls.info/crs/crs2026-title-39.pdf))

Proposition NN preserves the reimbursement obligation but changes its funding treatment. Beginning in **FY 2027–28**, the reimbursement amount is deducted from retained revenue before the remainder enters the Children’s Account. The first year is different: FY 2026–27 reimbursements remain tied to the preceding year’s refund obligation or existing General Fund funding. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-fiscal-impact-statements-english-accessible.pdf))

**This is an existing obligation—not a new pot of money counties could request for unrelated projects.** ([olls.info](https://olls.info/crs/crs2026-title-39.pdf))

Official legal reference: [2026 Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 39](https://olls.info/crs/crs2026-title-39.pdf), §§ 39-3-207 and 39-3-209.

### 3. How is the highest previous K–12 funding amount determined?

The Blue Book summarizes the new limit as the current limit plus a qualifying historical education amount. The underlying calculation is more specific than “everything Colorado spends on schools.” ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/blue-book))

#### How many years back?

**The measure does not specify a rolling three-, five-, or ten-year lookback, nor does this provision name a starting fiscal year.**

Proposed **C.R.S. § 24-77-303(1)** directs Legislative Council Staff to identify the greatest qualifying total in a preceding fiscal year. It is a historical high-water mark—not an average and not automatically just last year’s amount. It combines the qualifying appropriations and the positive-factor increase for the **same preceding year**, rather than assembling a maximum from different years. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/final-draft-packet))

For illustration, if qualifying annual totals were $4.6 billion, $4.8 billion, and $4.7 billion, the high-water mark would remain $4.8 billion. A lower subsequent year would not, by itself, erase that earlier maximum. This is an illustration of the statutory approach, not an official forecast. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/final-draft-packet))

Legislative Council Staff must make the initial determination by **January 15, 2027**, then report annually during July beginning in 2027. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/final-draft-packet))

#### What spending categories count?

The calculation includes qualifying appropriations for:

- The **state share of total program**—the state-funded portion of school-finance formula funding.
- **Categorical programs**, plus the measure’s specified positive-factor amount. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/final-draft-packet))

Categorical programs are defined in **C.R.S. § 22-55-102(4)**. They include transportation, English-language proficiency, special education, gifted education, career and technical education, and certain other designated programs. ([olls.info](https://olls.info/crs/crs2026-title-22.pdf))

#### What are the “certain funding sources”?

The official fiscal analysis identifies:

| Included in the qualifying calculation | Excluded |
| --- | --- |
| Qualifying General Fund appropriations | State Education Fund spending already exempt from TABOR under Amendment 23 |
| Qualifying appropriations from the **Kids Matter Account** within the State Education Fund | Spending from the State Public School Fund, which receives TABOR-exempt revenue |

The distinction is whether the relevant state funding is counted as TABOR spending—not simply whether a fund’s name contains “education.” Local property taxes and federal education funding are not added as though this were a calculation of all statewide school spending. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/117533/download))

**The Kids Matter Account and Proposition NN’s proposed Children’s Account are different accounts.** The former is an existing funding source relevant to the calculation; the latter would receive retained revenue under this proposal. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025B/bills/fn/2025b_hb25b-1002_f1.pdf?utm_source=openai))

## Sponsors and Designated Representatives

Unlike a citizen initiative, Proposition NN reached the ballot through legislation. Its prime legislative sponsors were:

- Senator Jeff Bridges
- Senator Cathy Kipp
- Representative Jennifer Bacon
- Representative Meghan Lukens. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-135?utm_source=openai))

Chalkbeat reports that the Colorado Education Association helped develop the proposal and that **Yes for Colorado Kids** organized the supporting campaign. Its reporting also identifies opposition from organizations concerned about TABOR refunds and government spending. Those affiliations provide context; they do not settle the policy question. ([chalkbeat.org](https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/07/17/advocates-launch-prop-nn-school-funding-yes-campaign/))

## The Case for Voting YES on Proposition NN

*The arguments below are drawn from independent reporting. Statements by supporters and opponents remain attributed policy arguments, not neutral findings.*

### More funding could help schools retain teachers and improve instruction

Supporters interviewed by CPR argue that additional funding could improve teacher compensation, reduce turnover, and allow smaller classes. They also point to potential benefits for rural districts that struggle to afford specialized staff. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/09/25/vg-2026-prop-nn-tabor-school-funding/))

**Counterargument:** Opponents question whether the promised improvements justify permanently surrendering refunds. More funding and better outcomes are not interchangeable promises; voters should ask what improvements would demonstrate success. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/09/25/vg-2026-prop-nn-tabor-school-funding/))

### Education needs may exceed what existing budgets provide

Chalkbeat reports that state-commissioned studies identified substantial gaps between current school funding and estimated funding needed to meet educational goals. Supporters see Proposition NN as a response to those needs. ([chalkbeat.org](https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/10/01/what-colorado-voters-should-know-about-proposition-nn-voter-guide/))

**Counterargument:** The same reporting describes opponents’ position that lawmakers should restrain spending and improve fiscal management before retaining more revenue. The disagreement is partly about whether inadequate resources or spending priorities are the larger problem. ([chalkbeat.org](https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/10/01/what-colorado-voters-should-know-about-proposition-nn-voter-guide/))

### Keeping existing revenue offers an alternative to raising rates

Supporters argue that Colorado already collects money that, if voters authorize retaining it, could address school needs. CPR’s legislative coverage describes their view that the revenue limit restricts investment in core services. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/05/12/voters-increase-school-funding-tabor/))

**Counterargument:** Opponents regard giving up refunds as a real financial cost, regardless of whether statutory tax rates change. “No higher rates” and “no cost to taxpayers” are different claims. ([chalkbeat.org](https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/07/17/advocates-launch-prop-nn-school-funding-yes-campaign/))

## The Case for Voting NO on Proposition NN

### Government should demonstrate better use of existing money first

Opponents quoted in CPR’s legislative coverage question expanding spending while schools face declining enrollment and taxpayers face affordability pressures. They argue that existing resources should be scrutinized before government retains more. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/05/12/voters-increase-school-funding-tabor/))

**Counterargument:** Supporters argue that present budgets still leave important needs unmet. The useful question is not simply whether spending has increased, but whether existing resources adequately support the services schools are expected to provide. ([chalkbeat.org](https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/10/01/what-colorado-voters-should-know-about-proposition-nn-voter-guide/))

### Taxpayers would lose money

Opponents argue that TABOR refunds belong with households and businesses rather than in a larger state budget. Chalkbeat’s campaign coverage describes their objection to the proposal as a de facto tax increase through reduced refunds. It's not a "tax'" but taxpayers still use money. ([chalkbeat.org](https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/07/17/advocates-launch-prop-nn-school-funding-yes-campaign/))

**Counterargument:** Supporters believe the services financed by that money would provide greater value. Parents and educators interviewed by Chalkbeat describe schools struggling with staffing, resources, and student support despite community fundraising. ([chalkbeat.org](https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/07/17/advocates-launch-prop-nn-school-funding-yes-campaign/))

### The permanent change goes beyond a ten-year education plan

CPR reports opponents’ concern that the revenue-cap increase has no expiration date, while the initial spending restrictions do. This is a broader commitment than a temporary school-funding measure. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/09/25/vg-2026-prop-nn-tabor-school-funding/))

**Counterargument:** Supporters view a lasting change as necessary to address longstanding funding constraints. However, support for permanent education investment does not automatically resolve whether later unrestricted allocations are appropriate; voters should consider those questions separately. ([chalkbeat.org](https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/10/01/what-colorado-voters-should-know-about-proposition-nn-voter-guide/))

## Fiscal Impact

The official September fiscal analysis distinguishes **retention capacity**, **actual retained revenue**, and **net additional spending**:

| Fiscal effect | FY 2026–27 | FY 2027–28 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Additional retention capacity above the current limit | About $4.6 billion | About $4.8 billion |
| Revenue forecast to be retained | $483.0 million | $674.1 million |
| Reduction in TABOR refunds under current law | $329.9 million | $521.0 million |
| Net increase in state spending | $329.9 million | $521.0 million |

These are forecasts, not guaranteed collections. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-fiscal-impact-statements-english-accessible.pdf))

Why do the retained-revenue and refund-reduction figures differ? Existing legislation—**House Bill 26-1419**—already changes the treatment of $153.1 million in each of those years. Proposition NN redirects that amount toward its spending framework rather than creating an equivalent additional loss of refunds. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-fiscal-impact-statements-english-accessible.pdf))

**Permission to retain $4.6 billion is not a forecast that the state will collect $4.6 billion in extra money.** The higher ceiling creates room for future retention; actual collections determine how much is available. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/blue-book))

## Conclusion

The strongest case for **YES** is that retaining more existing revenue could address school staffing and service needs without increasing tax rates. The strongest case for **NO** is that the measure permanently expands revenue retention at taxpayers’ expense, with broader spending discretion after ten years. Those are the competing priorities described in independent reporting. ([cpr.org](https://www.cpr.org/2026/09/25/vg-2026-prop-nn-tabor-school-funding/))

My takeaway is that voters should separate three questions:

1. **Do schools and children’s programs need additional funding?**
2. **Should that funding come from money otherwise returned through TABOR?**
3. **Should this approval also authorize broader spending choices after the first decade?**

A voter can support teachers and still question the financing mechanism. Another can value refunds but conclude that better-funded services are worth the tradeoff.

Before deciding, consider the whole commitment—not just the classroom benefits or the refund warning.

## Share & Engage

If you find this post useful, sign up for notifications of the next posts in this series.

What matters most to you: school funding, taxpayer refunds, spending accountability, or the legislature’s long-term discretion? Share your thoughts—and reliable sources—in the comments below.

## Learn More

### Official wording, law, and fiscal analysis

- [Colorado General Assembly — Proposition NN](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes)
- [Official measure text — Senate Bill 26-135](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/text-of-measure)
- [Proposition NN — Official Blue Book analysis](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/keep-and-spend-money-for-education-and-other-purposes/files/blue-book)
- [Official 2026 fiscal impact statements — see Proposition NN](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-fiscal-impact-statements-english-accessible.pdf)
- [2026 Colorado Revised Statutes — official download index](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-legislative-legal-services/2026-crs-titles-download)
- [Colorado General Assembly — State budget process](https://leg.colorado.gov/explorebudget)

### Official Language of the Senate Bill 26-135

SENATE BILL 26-135  
BY SENATOR(S) Bridges and Kipp, Amabile, Benavidez, Coleman,  
Cutter, Danielson, Daugherty, Exum, Gonzales J., Hinrichsen, Jodeh,  
Kolker, Lindstedt, Marchman, Mullica, Rodriguez, Snyder, Sullivan,  
Weissman, Wallace;  
also REPRESENTATIVE(S) Bacon and Lukens, Boesenecker, Camacho,  
Carter, Duran, Goldstein, Hamrick, Joseph, Lieder, Lindsay, Martinez,  
McCormick, Nguyen, Paschal, Phillips, Rydin, Smith, Stewart R., Titone,  
Velasco, Willford, Clifford, English, Espenoza, Froelich, Gilchrist, Jackson,  
Mauro, Ricks, Rutinel, Stewart K., Story, McCluskie.  
CONCERNING STATE PUBLIC EDUCATION K-12 FUNDING, AND, IN  
CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS FOR STATE  
PUBLIC EDUCATION K-12 FOR TEN YEARS, ALLOWING THE STATE TO  
RETAIN AN AMOUNT OF STATE REVENUE IN EXCESS OF THE  
LIMITATION ON STATE FISCAL YEAR SPENDING EQUAL TO STATE  
PUBLIC K-12 EDUCATION FUNDING, AND SUBMITTING A BALLOT  
QUESTION TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE STATE.  
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:  
SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly  
finds and declares that:  
NOTE: This bill has been prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative  
officers and the Governor. To determine whether the Governor has signed the bill  
or taken other action on it, please consult the legislative status sheet, the legislative  
history, or the Session Laws.  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
Capital letters or bold & italic numbers indicate new material added to existing law; dashes  
through words or numbers indicate deletions from existing law and such material is not part of  
the act.  
(a) Public education is the bedrock of Colorado's democracy,  
fundamental to individual opportunity, the underpinning of thriving  
communities, and the key to Colorado's economic prosperity and future;  
(b) Wise and adequate investment in Colorado's schools is essential  
to maintaining and improving the competitiveness of Colorado and its  
students;  
(c) The money invested in Colorado's public schools has a return on  
investment that has long been recognized as among the nation's highest;  
(d) An increase in the rates of K-12 graduation, the earning of  
industry certifications, and the earning of associates degrees demonstrate  
the effectiveness of Colorado's investment in public schools;  
(e) Research demonstrates that increasing school funding results in  
long-term increases in graduation rates and lifetime wages, prevents crime,  
and lowers incarceration rates;  
(f) Educators and support staff in every school district and charter  
school across Colorado make invaluable contributions to their schools,  
districts, and communities by dedicating their time, talents, and  
out-of-pocket money to their students, despite Colorado ranking near the  
bottom of starting teacher pay and having the largest teacher pay penalty in  
the nation;  
(g) Teachers, counselors, para professionals, bus drivers, and  
essential support staff are leaving their professions because salaries have  
not kept up with housing, healthcare, and cost of living;  
(h) Students are learning in overcrowded classrooms and in schools  
with fewer mental health counselors, opportunities for special education  
support, and programs that support their ability to develop into healthy,  
productive adults;  
(i) Working class, multilingual, and rural communities are hit  
hardest by chronic school underfunding;  
(j) In January 2025, the legislature received the reports and  
PAGE 2-SENATE BILL 26-135  
recommendation of the two commissioned adequacy studies: "Equity and  
Adequacy of Colorado School Funding - A Cost-Modeling Approach", by  
the American institutes for research, and "Colorado Input-Based Financial  
Adequacy Study Report", by Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc;  
(k) The adequacy studies found that, were Colorado schools funded  
fully and fairly, every student would have the individual attention they need  
from teachers, counselors, health professionals, tutors, and support staff to  
succeed and thrive; every teacher would have a reasonable workload,  
professional development and coaching, and a salary that would allow them  
to live where they work; and every community would enjoy the benefit of  
vibrant public schools, a high-quality workforce, and an engaged citizenry;  
(l) Colorado's fiscal constraints and potential of federal funding cuts  
to education, medicaid, nutrition, human services, and other critical  
programs threaten the sustainability and adequacy of school funding in  
Colorado and to deplete the state education fund;  
(m) Research demonstrates that high-quality early childhood  
education, including child care and preschool, produces significant  
long-term benefits, including improved school readiness, higher graduation  
rates, and greater lifetime earnings, and that every dollar invested in  
high-quality childhood education yields substantial returns to the state and  
its communities;  
(n) Children who participate in high-quality preschool and child care  
programs arrive in kindergarten better prepared to learn across language,  
math, and social-emotional domains, with the greatest benefits accruing to  
children from working families, rural communities, and multilingual  
households; and  
(o) Therefore, it is in the best interest of educators, students, and  
their families to allow voters to invest further in public education by  
modernizing the state's ability to retain and spend revenue to meet the needs  
of Colorado communities and to ensure that state investment in K-12 public  
education is increased by two percent for at least ten years through the  
funding of a positive factor.  
SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 22-54-103.7 as  
follows:  
PAGE 3-SENATE BILL 26-135  
22-54-103.7. Positive factor - definitions.  
(1) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE  
REQUIRES:  
(a) "NEW FORMULA DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM CALCULATION"  
MEANSA DISTRICT'S TOTAL PROGRAMFOR THE APPLICABLEBUDGETYEARAS  
CALCULATED PURSUANT TO THE DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM FORMULA IN  
SECTION 22-54-103.5. THE TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY ADJUSTMENTS  
REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22-54-103.3 WHEN DETERMINING A  
DISTRICT'S TOTAL PROGRAM FOR THE 2027-28 BUDGET YEAR THROUGH THE  
2030-31 BUDGET YEAR.  
(b) "NEW FORMULA STATEWIDE TOTAL PROGRAM CALCULATION"  
MEANS THE DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM FOR ALL DISTRICTS FOR THE  
APPLICABLE BUDGET YEAR AS CALCULATED PURSUANT TO THE DISTRICT  
TOTAL PROGRAM FORMULA IN SECTION 22-54-103.5. THE TERM DOES NOT  
INCLUDE ANY ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22-54-103.3  
WHEN DETERMINING A DISTRICT'S TOTAL PROGRAM FOR THE 2027-28  
BUDGET YEAR THROUGH THE 2030-31 BUDGET YEAR.  
(c) "POSITIVE FACTOR" MEANS:  
(I) FOR THE 2026-27 BUDGET YEAR, TWO PERCENT OF PROGRAM  
FOUNDATION CALCULATED FOR THE 2025-26 BUDGET YEAR;  
(II) FORTHE 2027-28 BUDGET YEARTHROUGHTHE 2034-35 BUDGET  
YEAR, THE SUM OF:  
(A) TWOPERCENTOFPROGRAMFOUNDATIONFORTHE IMMEDIATELY  
PRECEDING BUDGET YEAR; AND  
(B) THE POSITIVE FACTOR FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING  
BUDGET YEAR; AND  
(III) FOR THE 2035-36 BUDGET YEAR AND EACH BUDGET YEAR  
THEREAFTER:  
(A) TWO PERCENT OF PROGRAM FOUNDATION FOR THE 2034-35  
PAGE 4-SENATE BILL 26-135  
BUDGET YEAR; AND  
(B) THE POSITIVE FACTOR FOR THE 2034-35 BUDGET YEAR.  
(d) "PROGRAM FOUNDATION" MEANS:  
(I) FOR BUDGET YEARS BEFORE TOTAL PROGRAM IS DETERMINED  
PURSUANTTOSECTION 22-54-103.5, ANAMOUNTEQUALTOSTATESHAREOF  
TOTAL PROGRAM; AND  
(II) FOR BUDGET YEARS WHEN TOTAL PROGRAM IS DETERMINED  
PURSUANT TO SECTION 22-54-103.5, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO NEW FORMULA  
STATEWIDE TOTAL PROGRAM CALCULATION.  
(e) "STATE SHARE OF TOTAL PROGRAM" MEANS AN AMOUNT EQUAL  
TO THE TOTAL OF THE STATE'S SHARE OF EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT'S TOTAL  
PROGRAM, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 22-55-102 (18).  
(f) "TWO PERCENT K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION INCREASE" MEANS AN  
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LESSER OF:  
(I) THE POSITIVE FACTOR FOR THE CURRENT BUDGET YEAR; OR  
(II) THE AMOUNT THAT THE STATE IS AUTHORIZED TO RETAIN AND  
SPEND PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-77-302 (1) FOR THE BUDGET YEAR MINUS,  
FOR THE 2027-28 BUDGET YEAR AND EACH BUDGET YEAR THEREAFTER, AN  
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS OF WARRANTS ISSUED BY  
THESTATETREASURERPURSUANTTOSECTION39-3-207 (4) IN THECURRENT  
BUDGET YEAR.  
(2) FOR THE 2026-27 BUDGET YEAR AND EACH BUDGET YEAR  
THEREAFTER, A DISTRICT'S SHARE OF POSITIVE FACTOR IS EQUAL TO:  
(NEW FORMULA DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM CALCULATION / NEW  
FORMULA STATEWIDE TOTAL PROGRAM CALCULATION) X (TWO PERCENT  
K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION INCREASE).  
(3) FOR THE 2026-27 BUDGET YEAR AND EACH BUDGET YEAR  
THEREAFTER, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL ANNUALLY  
CALCULATE EACH DISTRICT'S NEW FORMULA DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM  
PAGE 5-SENATE BILL 26-135  
CALCULATION AND THE NEW FORMULA STATEWIDE TOTAL PROGRAM  
CALCULATION.  
(4) FOR THE 2026-27 BUDGET YEAR AND EACH BUDGET YEAR  
THEREAFTER, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE STAFF OF THE  
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SHALL ANNUALLY DETERMINE EACH DISTRICT'S  
POSITIVE FACTOR BASED ON BUDGET PROJECTIONS; EXCEPT THAT THE  
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE STAFF OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL  
SHALL MAKE MID-YEAR REVISIONS TO REPLACE PROJECTIONS WITH ACTUAL  
FIGURES TO DETERMINE ANY NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE AMOUNT TO  
MAINTAIN THE POSITIVE FACTOR FOR THE APPLICABLE BUDGET YEAR.  
(5) A DISTRICT'S POSITIVE FACTOR IS IN ADDITION TO, BUT IS NOT  
INCLUDED IN, THE DISTRICT'S TOTAL PROGRAM DETERMINED PURSUANT TO  
THIS ARTICLE 54. THE POSITIVE FACTOR MUST BE DISTRIBUTED IN THE SAME  
FORM AND MANNER IN WHICH PAYMENTS OF TOTAL PROGRAM ARE  
DISTRIBUTED UNDER LAW TO ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  
(6) A DISTRICT SHALL ONLY EXPEND ITS POSITIVE FACTOR TO:  
(a) INCREASE TEACHER PAY;  
(b) IMPROVE TEACHER RETENTION;  
(c) LOWER CLASS SIZES; AND  
(d) INCREASE ACCESS TO CAREER AND TECHNICAL COURSES.  
SECTION 3. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add part 3 to article 77  
of title 24 as follows:  
PART 3  
SUBMISSION OF BALLOT ISSUE  
VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE  
24-77-301. Definitions.  
AS USED IN THIS PART 3, UNLESSTHECONTEXTOTHERWISEREQUIRES:  
(1) "CHILDREN'S ACCOUNT" OR "ACCOUNT" MEANS THE CHILDREN'S  
ACCOUNT CREATED IN SECTION 24-77-302 (2).  
PAGE 6-SENATE BILL 26-135  
(2) "STATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING" MEANS THE AMOUNT  
DETERMINED BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STAFF PURSUANT TO SECTION  
24-77-303 (1).  
(3) "STATE REVENUES" MEANS STATE FISCAL YEAR SPENDING, AS  
DEFINED IN SECTION 24-77-102 (17).  
(4) "TWO PERCENT K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION INCREASE" HAS THE  
MEANING SET FORTH IN SECTION 22-54-103.7 (1)(f).  
24-77-302. Retention of excess state revenues - children's  
account - definitions.  
(1) FOR STATE FISCAL YEARS COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JULY 1,  
2026, THE STATEMAYRETAINANDSPENDSTATE REVENUES THATTHE STATE  
OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO REFUND UNDER SECTION 20  
(7)(d) OF ARTICLE X OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO  
THE STATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING FOR THE STATE FISCAL YEAR.  
(2) (a) THERE IS HEREBY CREATED IN THE GENERAL FUND THE  
CHILDREN'S ACCOUNT, WHICH CONSISTS OF:  
(I) FOR STATE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27, AN AMOUNT OF MONEY EQUAL  
TO THE AMOUNT THAT THE STATE RETAINS FOR STATE FISCALYEAR 2026-27  
PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION; AND  
(II) FOR STATE FISCAL YEARS COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JULY 1,  
2027, AN AMOUNT OF MONEY EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT THAT THE STATE  
RETAINS FOR THE STATE FISCALYEAR PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (1) OFTHIS  
SECTION MINUS AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF  
WARRANTS ISSUED BY THE STATE TREASURER PURSUANT TO SECTION  
39-3-207 (4) IN THE SAME STATE FISCAL YEAR.  
(b) FOR EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING ON OR AFTER JULY 1,  
2026, BUT BEFORE JULY 1, 2036, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:  
(I) SHALL TRANSFER OR APPROPRIATE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF  
EDUCATION AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE TWO PERCENT K-12 PUBLIC  
EDUCATION INCREASE FOR THE STATE FISCAL YEAR AND THE DEPARTMENT  
OF EDUCATION SHALL DISTRIBUTE THAT AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH  
PAGE 7-SENATE BILL 26-135  
SECTION 22-54-103.7;  
(II) SHALLAPPROPRIATEORTRANSFERANAMOUNTFOR INVESTMENT  
IN K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION, TO BE USED FOR SCHOOL SERVICES, DISABILITY  
SERVICES TO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES, AND INCREASING ANNUAL  
CONTACT HOURS, EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, BY WHICH ONE HALF OF  
THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT FOR THE STATE FISCAL YEAR  
EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT APPROPRIATED OR TRANSFERRED PURSUANT TO  
SUBSECTION (2)(b)(I) OF THIS SECTION FOR THE STATE FISCAL YEAR; AND  
(III) AFTER MAKING THE APPROPRIATIONS ORTRANSFERS REQUIRED  
BY SUBSECTIONS (2)(b)(I) AND (2)(b)(II) OF THIS SECTION FOR THE STATE  
FISCAL YEAR, SHALL APPROPRIATE OR TRANSFER THE REMAINING MONEY IN  
THE ACCOUNT TO PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT COLORADO'S CHILDREN,  
PRIORITIZING CHILD CARE, FULL-DAY PRESCHOOL, AND OTHER PROGRAMS  
THAT PREPARE CHILDREN TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN SCHOOL.  
(3) THE APPROVAL OF THE BALLOT MEASURE INCLUDING THIS  
SECTIONBYAMAJORITYOFTHEELECTORSVOTINGONTHEBALLOTMEASURE  
CONSTITUTES A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE TO ALLOW THE  
RETENTION AND EXPENDITURE OF THE ADDITIONAL STATE REVENUES THAT  
THE STATE ISAUTHORIZEDTORETAINANDSPENDPURSUANTTOSUBSECTION  
(1) OF THIS SECTION.  
(4) THIS SECTION DOES NOT AFFECT THE AMOUNT THAT THE STATE  
IS PERMITTED TO RETAIN AND SPEND UNDER THE EXCESS STATE REVENUES  
CAP, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 24-77-103.6 (6)(b)(I).  
(5) THE MONEY THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATES OR  
TRANSFERS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (2)(b)(I) OF THIS SECTION SHALL  
SUPPLEMENT AND NOT SUPPLANT TOTAL PROGRAM, AS DEFINED IN SECTION  
22-55-102 (18).  
24-77-303. Determination of state public education funding.  
(1) ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 15, 2027, ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2027,  
BUT BEFORE AUGUST 1, 2027, AND ON OR AFTER EACH JULY 1 AND BEFORE  
EACH AUGUST 1 THEREAFTER, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STAFF SHALL  
DETERMINE AND REPORT TO THE STATE CONTROLLER, THE OFFICE OF STATE  
PLANNING AND BUDGETING, AND THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE, THE  
PAGE 8-SENATE BILL 26-135  
GREATEST TOTAL AMOUNT IN A PRECEDING STATE FISCAL YEAR THAT HAS  
BEENCOUNTEDAS STATE FISCALYEARSPENDINGANDAPPROPRIATEDBYTHE  
GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR A PRECEDING STATE FISCAL YEAR FOR  
CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS AND THE STATE SHARE OF TOTAL PROGRAM AND  
THE AMOUNT OF THE TWO PERCENT K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION INCREASE FOR  
THE SAME PRECEDING STATE FISCAL YEAR. THE AMOUNT DETERMINED AND  
REPORTED BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STAFF PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION  
(1) ISTHE STATE PUBLICEDUCATIONFUNDINGFORTHATSTATE FISCALYEAR.  
(2) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE  
REQUIRES:  
(a) "CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS" HAS THE MEANING SET FORTH IN  
SECTION 22-55-102 (4).  
(b) "STATE SHARE OF TOTAL PROGRAM" MEANS AN AMOUNT EQUAL  
TO THE TOTAL OF THE STATE'S SHARE OF EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT'S TOTAL  
PROGRAM, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 22-55-102 (18).  
24-77-304. Excess state revenues expenditure independent audit.  
(1) FOR EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THAT THE STATE RETAINS AND  
SPENDS STATE REVENUES IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITATION ON STATE FISCAL  
YEAR SPENDING PURSUANT TO THIS PART 3, THE STATE AUDITOR SHALL  
REPORT ON EXCESS STATE REVENUES, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING  
INFORMATION:  
(a) THE AMOUNT OF STATE REVENUES THAT THE STATE RETAINED  
AND SPENT IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITATION ON STATE FISCAL YEAR SPENDING  
PURSUANT TO THIS PART 3; AND  
(b) A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE STATE EXPENDED FROM THE  
ACCOUNT THE STATE REVENUES THAT THE STATE RETAINED AND SPENT IN  
EXCESS OF THE LIMITATION ON STATE FISCAL YEAR SPENDING PURSUANT TO  
THIS PART 3.  
(2) THESTATEAUDITORSHALLCOMPLETETHEREPORTINGREQUIRED  
BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE STATE  
AUDITORCOMPLETESTHEREPORTREQUIREDPURSUANTTOSECTION 2-3-103  
(2) FOLLOWING A FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATE RETAINS AND SPENDS  
PAGE 9-SENATE BILL 26-135  
STATE REVENUES IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITATION ON STATE FISCAL YEAR  
SPENDING PURSUANT TO THIS PART 3 AND MAY AMEND THE REPORT  
THEREAFTER AS NECESSARY.  
SECTION 4. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 22-44-304, add (1)(g)  
as follows:  
22-44-304. Financial reporting - online access to information -  
definitions.  
(1) (g) (I) ADDITIONALLY, COMMENCING ON AUGUST 1, 2027, EACH  
LOCAL EDUCATION PROVIDER, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 22-54-202, SHALL  
POST IN A FORMAT THAT CAN BE DOWNLOADED AND SORTED, FOR FREE  
PUBLICACCESS, THE LOCALEDUCATIONPROVIDER'SACTUALEXPENDITURES  
OF ANY POSITIVE FACTOR RECEIVED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22-54-103.7.  
(II) AS USED IN THIS SUBSECTION (1)(g), UNLESS THE CONTEXT  
OTHERWISE REQUIRES, "POSITIVE FACTOR" HAS THE MEANING SET FORTH IN  
SECTION 22-54-103.7 (1)(c).  
SECTION 5. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 24-77-106.5, amend  
(1)(b) as follows:  
24-77-106.5. Annual financial report - certification of excess  
state revenues.  
(1) (b) Notwithstanding section 24-1-136 (11)(a)(I), based upon the  
financial report prepared in accordance with subsection (1)(a) of this section  
for any given fiscal year, the controller shall certify to the governor, the  
general assembly, and the executive director of the department of revenue  
no later than September 1 following the end of a fiscal year the amount of  
state revenues in excess of the limitation on state fiscal year spending  
imposed by section 20 (7)(a) of article X of the state constitution, if any, for  
such fiscal year and the state revenues in excess of such limitation that the  
state is authorized to retain and spend pursuant to voter approval of section  
24-77-103.6 AND PART 3 OF THIS ARTICLE 77.  
SECTION 6. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 29-32-104, amend (5)  
as follows:  
PAGE 10-SENATE BILL 26-135  
29-32-104. Permissible expenditures - affordable housing  
programs - report - definitions.  
(5) If the Legislative Council Staff's March Economic and Revenue  
Forecast in any given year projects revenue for the next state fiscal year will  
fall below the revenue limit imposed under section 20 of article X of the  
state constitution BY AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT OF STATE  
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING AS DEFINED IN SECTION 24-77-301 (2), the  
general assembly may reduce the funding allocated to the office required by  
this section for the next state fiscal year in order to balance the state budget  
for said state fiscal year.  
SECTION 7. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 39-22-123.5, amend  
(3.5)(a)(VIII) as follows:  
39-22-123.5. Earned income tax credit - legislative declaration  
\- repeal.  
(3.5) (a) As used in this subsection (3.5), unless the context  
otherwise requires:  
(VIII) "Nonexempt revenue" means, for the applicable state fiscal  
year, the revenues that are identified as nonexempt revenues in the annual  
comprehensive financial report published by the office of the state  
controller; EXCEPT THAT, FOR STATE FISCAL YEARS COMMENCING ON OR  
AFTER JULY 1, 2026, NONEXEMPT REVENUE INCLUDES STATE PUBLIC  
EDUCATION FUNDING AS DEFINED IN SECTION 24-77-301 (2).  
SECTION 8. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 39-22-130, amend  
(2)(b)(II)(G) as follows:  
39-22-130. Family affordability tax credit - tax preference  
performance statement - legislative declaration - definitions - repeal.  
(2) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:  
(b) (II) As used in this subsection (2)(b):  
(G) "Nonexempt revenue" means, for the applicable state fiscal year,  
the revenue that is identified as nonexempt TABOR revenues in the annual  
PAGE 11-SENATE BILL 26-135  
comprehensive financial report published by the office of the state  
controller; EXCEPT THAT, FOR STATE FISCAL YEARS COMMENCING ON OR  
AFTER JULY 1, 2026, NONEXEMPT REVENUE INCLUDES STATE PUBLIC  
EDUCATION FUNDING AS DEFINED IN SECTION 24-77-301 (2).  
SECTION 9. Refer to people under referendum. At the election  
held on November 3, 2026, the secretary of state shall submit this act by its  
ballot title to the registered electors of the state for their approval or  
rejection. Each elector voting at the election may cast a vote either  
"Yes/For" or "No/Against" on the following ballot title: "Shall state  
investment in K-12 public education increase two percent each year for the  
next ten years, with investments used to increase teacher pay, improve  
teacher retention, lower class sizes, and increase access to career and  
technical courses, without raising taxes but instead funded by raising the  
annual limit on state fiscal year spending only by the amount spent on  
public K-12 education as a voter-approved revenue change, and requiring  
an annual publicly released, independent audit to show how the new  
investments are spent?" Except as otherwise provided in section 1-40-123,  
Colorado Revised Statutes, if a majority of the electors voting on the ballot  
title vote "Yes/For", then the act will become part of the Colorado Revised  
Statutes.  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
James Rashad Coleman, Sr. Julie McCluskie  
PRESIDENT OF SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE  
THE SENATE OF REPRESENTATIVES  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  
Esther van Mourik Vanessa Reilly  
SECRETARY OF CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE  
THE SENATE OF REPRESENTATIVES  
PAGE 12-SENATE BILL 26-135

[View full post](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/proposition-nn-2026-election)

```json
{
  "@context" : "http://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "Marek Bobik"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2026-10-14T21:15:23.585Z",
  "datePublished" : "2026-10-14T21:13:09Z",
  "headline" : "Proposition NN | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 8 of 14",
  "image" : {
    "@type" : "ImageObject",
    "height" : 768,
    "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Colorado%20Proposition%20NN.png",
    "width" : 1376
  },
  "mainEntityOfPage" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/proposition-nn-2026-election",
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "height" : 60,
      "url" : "/hs/hsstatic/content_shared_assets/static-1.4092/img/default-amp-logo.png",
      "width" : 60
    },
    "name" : "What's Up Americans? | Blog"
  }
}
```