Sponsors advance plan for a new state civil commitment hospital but bill fails after industry opposition

Representative Marshall introduced HB206131 to add state hospital capacity for long‑term civil commitment and competency restoration, proposing a 50–70 bed facility near the Anschutz campus in Aurora and potentially a Western Slope allocation for excess revenues. Sponsors presented construction cost estimates (roughly $90–$92 million for the facility envelope in initial contractor estimates) and operating estimates (approximately $22–$24 million annually by sponsor calculation), and proposed funding via a voter‑referred excise tax on alcohol and by modest increases tied to other taxed products; the bill would be TABOR‑compliant and referred to voters.

Multiple victims, district attorneys, sheriffs, community behavioral health representatives and former legislators testified in support, citing long waits for competency restoration, repeated reoffending after dismissals, and system backlogs that have placed victims and communities at risk. Supporters argued the measure would reduce wait lists, avoid federal fines for missed court‑ordered competency services, and provide a dedicated funding stream for sustained operations.

Industry stakeholders from the beverage alcohol and cannabis sectors opposed the bill, warning that large excise increases would harm small producers and retailers, risk job losses, and drive consumers to untaxed or illicit markets. Craft distillers, breweries and winery associations said the proposed excise increases (as introduced) could be economically damaging despite sponsor amendments cutting rates.

Committee action: Sponsors offered four amendments (L001 reduced initial proposed rates; L002 created continuous appropriations to dedicate revenues; L003 revised ballot title language per Attorney General advice; L004 addressed a DOR implementation fiscal exposure). Those amendments passed. On final roll call the committee rejected the bill 6–7; sponsor moved to postpone HB206131 indefinitely and that motion passed, effectively ending the bill’s progress this session.

Why it matters: Supporters call this a narrowly tailored financing path to fix a pressing capacity and public safety problem; opponents say the funding mechanism is regressive or economically harmful to small businesses and tourism‑dependent regions. The debate centers on tradeoffs between immediate capacity needs and tax impacts on regulated industries.

What’s next: The sponsor’s referral effort stalled in committee; the measure was postponed indefinitely. Sponsors signaled openness to future rework and alternate funding approaches.

Sources: Sponsor testimony, victim and law enforcement testimony, and industry testimony from multiple trade associations.