Before the Ballot: What SB 26-145 Means for School Districts

Background

The Colorado General Assembly recently enacted Senate Bill 26-145, entitled “Charter School Involvement in Local Ballot Questions” (the “Bill” or “SB 26-145”). The Bill, which became effective on May 28, 2026, requires a Colorado school district (a “District”) that is considering submitting to its voters any ballot question concerning capital construction to solicit proposals from its charter schools about their capital construction needs and outlines the process for considering those proposals. For purposes of the Bill, “capital construction” includes both debt and “debt-free schools” levies.

SB 26-145 also changes the way Districts involve charter schools in long-range planning and capital-needs committees, including by requiring at least one committee seat for a charter school representative and clear notice of the committee meeting schedule. If a committee or body other than the Board of Education of a District (the “Board”) develops capital construction recommendations for the Board to include in a ballot question, that committee must solicit and give equitable consideration to charter school capital construction needs.

A Brief School District Election Refresher

Before SB 26-145, the charter-school requirements for a District capital finance election were primarily contained in former C.R.S. § 22-30.5-404. That statute created two practical entry points:

• District-initiated bond question. If a District was considering submitting a question of contracting bonded indebtedness at an upcoming election, the District had to invite each charter school chartered by the District to participate in discussions regarding the possible submission of the question at the earliest possible time, but no later than June 1 of the applicable election year.
• Charter-initiated request. A charter school with capital construction needs could ask its chartering District to include those needs in a District bonded indebtedness question, submit a special mill levy question for charter capital construction, or include the needs in an additional mill levy question for ongoing cash funding for capital construction, technology, and maintenance needs.

Prior law also required a District to allow charter-school representation on the District’s long-range planning committee and on any District committee established to assess and prioritize capital construction needs, and to notify charter schools of the committee’s meeting schedule.

The key point is that, before SB 26-145, the statute focused on inviting charter schools into capital construction discussions by June 1, allowing charter participation in capital-planning committees, reviewing any charter-submitted capital construction plan, and giving a written prioritization decision before the ballot-certification deadline.

What SB 26-145 Changes

Among other changes, SB 26-145 repealed the June 1 “discussion-invitation” language and replaced it with a more structured process for solicitation, presentation, notice, and posting.

SB 26-145 provides a new framework by establishing a record-building process that Districts must build into their calendars as part of their ballot question process for any bond, “special mill levy” (a special mill levy imposed specifically for charter school capital construction), or “additional mill levy” (defined in SB 26-145 as a mill levy imposed pursuant to 22-54-108.7 – the “debt free schools” levy) ballot question.  Bond questions, special mill levies and additional mill levies are referred to herein as “charter capital questions.”

1. Committee Representation And Meeting Notice

A District’s long-range planning committee, if one exists, and any other District committee established to assess or prioritize capital construction needs must maintain at least one membership seat for a charter school representative. If a committee or body other than the Board develops capital construction recommendations for the Board to include in a ballot question, that committee or body must solicit input from and give equitable consideration to charter school capital construction needs. Districts may need to amend their long-range planning committee’s applicable procedures to provide for such charter school representation.

2. Written Solicitation Of Charter School Proposals

A District that is considering submitting to the District’s voters a ballot question that concerns capital construction must solicit, in writing, proposals from each charter school about such charter school’s capital construction needs (the “Solicitation”).

The timing of the Solicitation is one of the major changes imposed by SB 26-145. The Solicitation must be made as early as practicable, but no later than 120 days before the Board approves any ballot question to be submitted to the District’s voters. The Solicitation also must include the deadline for the charter school to respond, which must be no earlier than 45 days after the date of the Solicitation. The practical issue here is that “when a board approves a ballot question” varies by District and can be any date prior to the date the ballot question must be certified to the county clerks. Therefore, the date on which the Solicitation is made now sets the earliest possible date on which the Board can consider the proposed ballot questions. However, that date can easily slip if other requirements are not fulfilled on the earliest possible date. Consequently, the District should consider making the Solicitation earlier than 120 days before the date that it is anticipated that the Board will consider the ballot question.  

3. Required Content Of Charter School Proposals

A charter school’s proposal, made in response to the Solicitation (the “Proposal”), must include several categories of required information, including but not limited to (i) a statement of reasons why the proposed capital construction to be financed by a charter capital question is necessary, (ii) a description of the proposed capital construction, (iii) an estimate of the total cost to complete the proposed capital construction and, if other money will be used, a breakdown of those other funding sources, and (iv) a statement of reasons why revenue sources other than a charter capital question are inadequate to fully finance the proposed capital construction. A full list of the required content can be found in C.R.S. § 22-30.5-404(3)(c). The statute does not prescribe what a District should do if a Proposal does not contain all required information.

4. Public Presentation Before Ballot-Question Approval

Each charter school is now required to present its Proposal at a public meeting of the Board, the long-range planning committee, or, if no long-range planning committee exists, any other committee established by the District to assess or prioritize capital construction needs. The meeting must occur no later than 45 days before the Board approves any ballot question for an upcoming election. Therefore, the public presentation date could push back the earliest date the Board can consider the ballot question beyond the original 120-day period set by the Solicitation date.

5. Board Review And Superintendent Notice

The Board must review every Proposal submitted by a charter school under the new process established by SB 26-145. No later than 30 days before the Board approves any ballot question or questions, the District’s superintendent must notify every charter school that submitted a Proposal, in writing, of the Board’s decision concerning whether to include the charter school’s requests in the District’s capital construction questions (the “Superintendent’s Notice”). Again, the date of the Superintendent’s Notice can push the earliest date the Board can consider the ballot question past the original 120-day period set by the Solicitation date and past the 45-day period set by the public presentation.

If the Board decides not to submit a charter capital question in the District’s bond or additional mill levy question, the Superintendent’s Notice must include the Board’s reasons for exclusion. Those reasons must be specific and related to the merits of the Proposal, and the Superintendent’s Notice must include the opportunity for the charter school to address any issues raised by the Board. The statute does not prescribe the process for giving the charter school the opportunity to address any issues raised by the Board, nor does it direct what the District should do if the issues are addressed by the charter school. Therefore, it will be up to the District to decide how to work with the charter school to determine whether the issues can be addressed and, if so, how to take the revised Proposal to the Board.

6. Public Website Posting After Project Selection

No later than 30 days after the Board selects the capital construction projects that are included in any ballot question, the Board must post a document outlining the Board’s process in considering the capital construction needs of all of its schools (not just the charter schools) and, for all projects considered, describing in detail the reasoning for choosing to prioritize or exclude each capital construction project in a prominent and readily accessible location on the Board’s website. .

7. Mutual-Agreement Path For Voluntary Charter Funding

SB 26-145 encourages Districts to voluntarily submit charter capital questions. If the District voluntarily submits a question for charter school capital construction needs and the District and charter school mutually agree to the content of the charter school’s proposal, compliance with the Solicitation and Proposal process described above is not required. However, mutual agreement with the charter school’s proposal does not relieve the District of the obligation to provide the Superintendent’s Notice or to post the document on its website describing the capital construction projects included in a ballot question.

The November 2026 Timing Problem

For the November 3, 2026, coordinated election (the “Election”), the last day for the designated election official of each political subdivision to certify the ballot order and content to the county clerk and recorder is 60 days before the Election, which is Friday, September 4, 2026.

Because SB 26-145 measures several deadlines from the date the Board approves the ballot question, a District should not assume that the September 4 certification deadline is the only relevant deadline. Most Districts approve ballot questions at August Board meetings for November elections.

Assuming a District’s Board approves a ballot question on August 15, 2026, the new SB 26-145 lookback deadlines for the Election would be as follows:

The result is that, assuming an August 15, 2026, Board-approval date, a District that did not already send a written Solicitation by April 17, 2026, before SB 26-145 became effective, likely cannot complete the full process required by SB 26-145 before approving a November 2026 capital construction ballot question. A District that approves the ballot question before August 15 has even less time. Since Districts typically approve ballot questions at either their first or second meeting in August, the timing requirements of SB 26-145 are difficult, if not impossible, to meet for the November 2026 Election.

SB 26-145 does not contain an express transition provision for the 2026 election cycle, so Districts should not assume that the statutory timing requirements will be excused merely because the 120-day lookback date preceded SB 26-145’s effective date. Districts should therefore seek District-specific legal advice before proceeding with a November 2026 bond, special mill levy, or additional mill levy question that concerns capital construction.

What Should Districts Do Now?

Districts that have charter schools considering any 2026 ballot question should first determine whether the question “concern[s] capital construction.” If the answer is yes, the District should assume that the new SB 26-145 process applies unless counsel identifies a District-specific reason why it does not.

1. For Districts Considering November 2026 Measures

• Inventory the proposed ballot question immediately. Determine whether the question is for bonded indebtedness, a special mill levy, an additional mill levy, or another question that concerns capital construction.
• Review actions the District has already taken. Identify all written solicitations, committee notices, committee agendas, capital-needs materials, charter-school communications, public meetings, presentations, Board work sessions, and Board decisions that occurred before SB 26-145 was signed and after it became effective.
• If excluding a charter school’s Proposal, build a merits-based record. The Superintendent’s Notice must include reasons that are specific and related to the merits of the Proposal and must provide the charter school an opportunity to address issues raised by the Board.
• Coordinate with the county clerk and the designated election official. Title 1 deadlines for notice of participation, coordinated-election agreements, ballot certification, TABOR comments, and TABOR notices will continue to apply even if SB 26-145 creates an earlier internal process deadline.
• Consider postponement or a revised ballot strategy where appropriate. The analysis will depend on the specific question, prior process, Board action, charter-school communications, and county timeline.

2. For Future Elections

• Start the charter-school process well before the Board is expected to consider the ballot question. As a practical matter, Districts should provide more than 120 days before Board consideration to allow Solicitation, charter response, staff review, public presentation, Board deliberation, Superintendent’s Notice, and potential follow-up.
• The mutual agreement pathway contemplated by C.R.S. § 22-30.5-404(2.5) does not appear to replace the formal Solicitation and Proposal process in C.R.S. § 22-30.5-404(3) unless the District actually submits a special mill levy question for the charter school’s capital construction needs or includes the agreed-upon charter-school funding in the District’s bond or additional-mill-levy question, and the District and charter school mutually agree to the content of the charter school’s proposal. If those negotiations do not result in the charter school’s proposed funding being placed before the voters, the subsection (2.5) exception is not triggered, and the District should expect to comply with the Bill’s written Solicitation, response-period, Proposal-content, and public-presentation requirements.
• Update long-range planning committee structure and procedures. Committee procedures, bylaws, calendars, and meeting notices may need to be amended to reflect the required seat for a charter-school representative.
• Use written evaluation criteria. Because the District must later post a detailed explanation of why each considered project was prioritized or excluded, the District should identify and apply criteria such as health and safety, code compliance, enrollment needs, educational adequacy, building condition, project readiness, cost, funding availability, operating impacts, and alignment with the District’s long-range plan.
• Maintain a clean administrative record. Keep copies of Solicitations, proofs of transmission, charter responses, presentation materials, meeting notices, minutes, scoring or prioritization materials, Superintendent’s Notices, and website postings.
• Calendar the post-selection website posting. The Board must post the process-and-prioritization document no later than 30 days after selecting the capital construction projects to be included on a ballot question.

Conclusion

SB 26-145 moves charter-school engagement from an informal discussion requirement to a more structured election-planning process. For future elections, the practical solution is to start early, document each step, and align the SB 26-145 process with all applicable election deadlines. SB 26-145 does not discuss the consequences of a District’s noncompliance, nor does it discuss the remedies available to a charter school for a District’s noncompliance. Therefore, Districts should contact their bond counsel or general counsel for any questions arising under SB 26-145.

For the November 2026 Election, Districts should contact bond counsel or general counsel promptly to evaluate options for moving forward.