The public has been asking for it for years, and it looks like it will finally happen.

On Monday, the executive committee of the Legislative Council, comprised of six legislative leaders, looked at the cost of live-streaming videos of committee hearings at the Capitol. The discussion focused on a pilot program that would begin with the 2026 session. Should that move forward, Colorado would cease to be the only state in the nation that does not live-stream its legislative committee hearings.

For years, the lack of live video streaming has been a problem for governmental transparency advocates and other members of the public.

The cameras are already in the committee hearing rooms and used for remote testimony, so converting to live video streaming is a minor change.

According to Zack Wimberly, the senior information technology manager for the General Assembly, there will be some differences between Senate and House committee hearings. He pointed out that Senate cameras do not point at witnesses while testifying during hearings.

But the views were not unanimous. Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, R-Monument, was against video livestreaming because of potential costs that he estimated could run in the millions.

“I’m a ‘no’ at this moment simply because I don’t think we need to open this door. Audio is fine,” Lundeen said.

Wimberly said it would cost about $70,000, including $20,000 for set-up and $50,000 to run the video for the first year.

House Speaker Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, has supported the change, telling the committee Monday it is “a modest and reasonable expense,” given the public’s input in a December hearing regarding changes to the open meetings law. That meeting drew comments from the public that the legislature is not being transparent due to Senate Bill 24-157, which carved out exceptions to the open meetings law for the General Assembly.

A pilot program would be a significant first step, McCluskie told the committee Monday, adding the committee could be ready to move forward as soon as its June meeting.

Wimberly told the executive committee in February that the General Assembly has been set up for video for a long time. But the leaders need to consider several questions, such as who would do the work. Would it be the Colorado Channel or legislative staff, and could they do multiple committees?

Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez, D-Denver, says more technology leads to more glitches.

According to Wimberly, that leads to concerns from the public that the legislature is “hiding something” when the video or audio stops working.

In March, Wimberly presented a series of options, ranging from not doing anything, streaming video through a paid vendor using a static camera, hiring a full-time video producer, using the current contractors who provide audio for committee hearings or using the Colorado Channel to expand their existing work.

Wimberly recommended going with Sliq Media Technologies on Monday, which already provides audio for committee hearings. According to the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, Sliq provides video service in four states.

“I’m encouraged,” said Jeff Roberts of the Coalition. He noted lawmakers have not stopped talking about it throughout the 2025 sessions. The Speaker and the House Republican caucus are in favor of it. It sounds like a groundswell of doing something, even as an initial first step,” he said.

Research from CFOIC shows Colorado is the only state that does not video livestream its committee hearings at all, although two states only broadcast their budget and appropriations committee hearings.

“It’s about time,” he told Colorado Politics, even if the video is not the best quality. Once people see how valuable video can be in following who’s talking, maybe they’ll find the money to make it useful for broadcast news, for example, he said. “It’s a needed step.”