Panel advances bill tightening eligibility and timing for Colorado school safety grants

Representative Hamrick and co‑sponsor Representative Stewart presented House Bill 13‑21, which redefines eligibility and expectations for the state’s school security disbursement grant. Sponsors said the bill prioritizes organizations that provide comprehensive, evidence‑based services—incident response, violence prevention and behavioral health—and require recipients to offer those services at no cost to local education providers, law enforcement and first responders.

"This bill introduces a Colorado‑first approach that prioritizes comprehensive safety and mental health," Representative Stewart said, summarizing the bill’s three primary changes: a focus on comprehensive service, a requirement that services be provided at no cost to local partners, and local accountability for Colorado‑based recipients.

Several members questioned whether the bill’s requirements would unduly narrow the applicant pool and disadvantage specialized providers that offer only one or two of the listed services. Representative Johnson and others argued that many reputable providers focus on a single niche—incident response or behavioral health—and that an "and" requirement could exclude beneficial programs, especially in rural areas that rely on niche providers.

The Office of School Safety (DPS) opposed the strike language in the amendment as written. Charlie North, grants manager at the Office of School Safety, said the office already offers many behavioral health and prevention services statewide and that the bill’s restrictive language risked duplicating state services or narrowing options for districts that need different kinds of support.

Among opponents, Daniel Fennelisen of the Colorado State Shooting Association, who identified himself as a school shooting survivor, argued the bill could make it harder for organizations that provide law enforcement or armed‑staff training to receive grant funds and urged the committee not to restrict eligibility in a way that would limit rural access to incident response resources.

Supporters including representatives of the D'Angelo Center Foundation, retired law enforcement trainers and clinicians said a comprehensive, coordinated approach—linking prevention, preparation, response and recovery—improves outcomes and reduces trauma. "Ensuring behavioral health components are part of response training allows the responders to be made aware of the impacts they will encounter," said Shauna Fritzler of the D'Angelo Center Foundation.

The committee debated several floor amendments. Sponsors argued a safety clause and tight grant timeline were needed so grant funds could be dispersed before schools reopen; Representative Hamrick moved Amendment L001 (adding a safety/timing clause), which the committee adopted following recorded votes. Other committee amendments seeking to change the required grant services from 'and' to 'or' and to permit modest training fees were considered and failed on recorded votes.

After closing remarks, Representative Hamrick moved HB 13‑21 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. The clerk called a roll‑call vote; the chair announced the bill passed out of committee by a vote of 8 to 5.

The bill narrows the Department of Public Safety’s grant eligibility and articulates timing expectations to ensure awarded funds are available before the school year; opponents say its language risks excluding specialized providers and duplicating services already delivered by the Office of School Safety.