March 19, 2026 · Local Government & Housing · 12,644 words · 17 speakers · 169 segments
Senate Local Government Housing Committee will come to order. Ms. Alanzaro, please call the vote.
Senators Baisley?
Present.
Lindstedt?
Liston?
Here.
Marchman?
Here.
Rich?
Here.
Snyder?
Here.
Mr. Chair?
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, everybody. Sorry for the delay. We were waiting on the upon adjournment committees, but we have three bills this afternoon, and we're going to go a little bit out of order by request of bill sponsors, and we'll start with Senator Marchman
when she gets settled for Senate Bill 129. That's right.
Senator Marchman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. in committee. I've never done this before, but this bill has taken all kinds of forms. I've been working on this issue for about three years. I ran a bill in 23 that would have put some limitations on URAs on agricultural land. It passed. The governor vetoed it. So we've been in conversation with the GOVs team and stakeholders, counties, fire districts, and school districts ever since. What this bill would have done, I am going to move to postpone it indefinitely today, and that's the part that I've never done before. but I am going to move to postpone it indefinitely so that we can keep working on this issue. What the bill would have done would have mandated a local certification of an impact. So when a development is going to come with a URA, generally an impact report is sent. And what this would have done would have given the locals, so the fire district, the special district, the school district, the opportunity to say, you know, I agree with those numbers or I don't agree with those numbers. Additionally, the bill and what my original intent was, was I was getting scrappy with school funding. We spend about $150 million a year on TIFs, and that's where we have to backfill out of our general fund because of Amendment 23. And it varies. And as a body, we don't do anything. We don't ever get to see when a new TIF is born. We don't get to say yay or nay. We don't put any limits on schools or fire districts in terms of saving them. So what this bill would have done would also have created a report. The good news is the report happens anyway. I sent it to all the members of the committee. It's a legislative council services report. and what it does is it tracks by year how many TIFs and how much money we're having to offset out of general fund each year So that report will still keep going but at this point I going to take this all offline We going to do more conversations and just continue to try to be scrappy to make sure that our fire districts our school districts and our counties have what they need even while we're doing development. So with that, Mr. Chair, I would move to postpone indefinitely Senate Bill 129.
Thank you. That's a proper motion. Is there any questions on postponing this bill indefinitely? Yes, Vice Chair Snyder.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Marchman. I hate to say this, but it gets easier after you P.I. your first bill.
Unfortunately, that's been my experience.
I'm on a trustee, Senator. Okay.
Is there any objection to postponing this bill indefinitely? We have to still call a vote. Okay. Ms. Al-Ansar, please call the vote.
Senators Baisley?
Aye.
Lindstedt?
Aye.
Liston?
Regretfully at the sponsor's request.
Thank you.
Marchman?
Aye.
Rich?
Aye.
Snyder?
Aye.
Mr. Chair?
At the bill sponsor's request, aye. Do you want to?
Thank you, committee, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
Do we need to do another motion? Okay. No consent. Okay. All right. And Senator Marchman, do you want to wait for, is Senator Koch, oh, he's here. He's hiding in the back. Okay, great. We'll move on to Senate Bill 1099 with Senators Marchman and Coker. Who would like to start us? Senator Coker, thanks for joining us.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
members of local gov i don't think you're normally in this committee room so this is unusual but uh um house bill 1099 uh has has been amended it's done some some things to get to the point we're at where i think we're at a good spot um the purpose of this bill is for new builds um to make sure that the developer when they're developing a property and they're setting up an HOA that they're hiring a third party to do a study on what the reserve requirement would be for deferred maintenance on the property so that the people who are then running the HOA and the property owners aren't going to be surprised down the road that they can actually budget and plan ahead as part of their HOA fees for some of that deferred maintenance. And so that's where this bill has come, is to do that reserve study, just a study to see what were needed for maintenance down the road. And if you lived in an HOA and, you know, there's always going to be things that wear out over time and try to do their best estimates of what those costs are going to be down the road. So plain and simple, that's my take.
Thank you, Senator Coker.
Senator Marchman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, yeah, I think that this, I want to talk about another part of this bill, that it actually, we have management companies that are holding some of our community records hostage. When an HOA switches companies, which happens a pretty good bit, The outgoing company can drag its feet on turning over their own records of the association financials vendor contracts passwords all that kind of stuff So bills go unpaid late fees accumulate and so our goal is to ensure that within 45 days, all association property and records are handed over. So that's the other component of this bill. And I'd be open to any questions that you guys might have on 1099.
Thank you, Senator Marchman. Committee questions for the bill sponsors. Seeing none, we will move into a witness testimony phase. We have... We have four people, actually two, because two dropped off. We have two that are remote, that are in the men position, so we'll do two panels. We'll do the folks that are in the men first. If you'll pull up online for me, Matthew Cousy and Mr. Edward Schoenheit. Okay. Okay. Gentlemen, thanks for joining us. Mr. Cousy, am I saying that right?
right? Yeah, Queasley, thanks so much for having me today and the opportunity to testify. I'm a professional engineer and a reserve specialist representing reserve advisors. We're the nation's largest provider of reserve studies for community associations and I just want to share today that approximately 2.5 million Coloradans live in more than 12,000 community associations in the state. Residents pay over five billion dollars a year to maintain their communities and these costs are for things like private roads, stormwater, roofs, parking, and amenities that would otherwise fall to local government. That reality creates a clear responsibility that associations must maintain and replace the shared components of their community. Reserve studies are a basic planning tool that make that possible. A credible reserve study includes both the physical analysis and a financial analysis, but they do not increase the costs for associations, despite what some might say. The study simply makes the true cost of owning in the community transparent to all of the owners and prospective buyers. For that reason, I support requiring reserve studies for new communities and would simply recommend expanding this requirement to existing associations. As we've learned in other states, it's important to require that these studies be prepared in compliance with the most current reserve study standards using definitions and goals. It can get a little bit detail-oriented to get that right and make sure that it's showing complete and comprehensive picture of the true cost of ownership. So we think they should be provided by qualified professionals, such as reserve professionals, engineers, and architects. I also urge the sponsors to consider updating an update requirement at some reasonable frequency, perhaps three or five years, to allow communities to stay on track and viable. Just yesterday, Fannie Mae enhance their own reserve study requirements and increase the replacement reserve funding requirements. Please consider the minor adjustments to the legislation that I mentioned to keep pace with the financial regulation and the environment, reduce surprise special assessments and property values promote long housing stability for Colorado homeowners Thank you for the time and I here to answer any questions Thank you Mr Cusey Mr Schoenheit thanks for joining us Thank you community members My name
is Ed Schoenheit. I'm a senior board member of the largest true HOA in Colorado Springs, over 3,000 units and been a board member for over 10 years now. So I do want to thank the sponsors for bringing this bill forward. It's been in different shapes and forms over several years, and it's been detoured over several years by the governor's office. Not quite sure the justification for that. Reserve studies are very important for large HOAs that own a lot of common area and have a lot of real property infrastructure that we have to maintain. And the frequency in which they need to be done, whether three to five years, owners need to have that information. It impacts the financial security and the insurance ratings for the HOAs overall. When reserve studies are not done and the funding level goes down and we have higher risks, if something happens or things start to wear out and not get replaced, that has an impact on the community overall when it's not being maintained. And the lenders see that. Obviously, the owners see that. The lenders see that as well, too. So having a reserve study provided to owners as they get ready to purchase the property should just be commonplace. And, you know, that's truth in lending, and it's available for all owners to have that information. There was one aspect about the bill. I'm not sure if it's been removed or not. I was looking at a couple of the re-engrossed versions of it. But the funding levels for a developer, let's say, you know, getting ready to turn over a community to the association and to the owners, the developer does have some responsibility to make sure that the community is set up for success, at least in the initial period of time, whether it's that first initial five years for funding levels for items that potentially are going to have shorter lifespans and earlier life cycle replacement. I think it was 1.5%. And I just wanted to throw out a kind of a metric there is if you've got a large HOA that has hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars worth of infrastructure, 1.5% from a developer might be a couple of thousand dollars. It might be, you know, a few 10,000s of dollars on infrastructure and real property worth into the hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars. So that was pretty low. So if we were going to amend something, you know, and change that, that would be something that I would recommend. But reserve studies are beneficial, and having developers get those prepared and turn those over to the association and to the boards is very value-added. So I just want to add to those comments. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Schoenheit. Committee questions for this first panel.
Yes, Vice Chair Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you, Mr. Schoenheit. That may be the first time this year. I had a question for you maybe you could answer. It says here, prior to the transfer of control from the declarant to the association of a planned community or condominium. So many times when a development is started, the board is mainly employees of that developer and others. And sometimes it could be several years before control is given over to an actual elected HOA board. So am I reading this correctly? They just have to get this reserve study done prior to that transfer?
Mr. Schoenheit.
That's the way I understand it as well, too. Yeah. Typically for a large subdivision it might be 50 or 60% of the lots have to be sold and at that time the declarant would then transfer control over to the owners from an elected board. But really you'd want to have that reserve study done before the first lot was sold in that community.
Right. Thank you.
Thank you.
I have a question for either one of you. as a recovering HOA board president, the reserves have always been a big issue for me. So you had mentioned some numbers. The amount in the reserve is based on dues or the value of the property, or is it either?
Mr. Schoenheit.
Yeah, and definitely can defer to our reserve expertise, but typically the reserve studies based off of funding for the real property and infrastructure and maintenance and life cycle replacement of those items that are listed in the reserve study. So giving an example for like our community, we own about 250 mailboxes. They're not owned by the Postal Service and they're 25 years old. And so we have to budget within the reserve study for a certain amount to be replaced based on life cycle every year. And then we fund the reserve study to make up that amount that we're going to need. And we have that for playgrounds and stuff like that. So it's really based off of the real property infrastructure and equipment that will be replaced, not just based off the assessments itself. And that risk level, you know, you want to have the ability to get to a lower risk level, which means a higher reserve funding level.
Okay, I appreciate it. Mr. Kuz, do you have any comments on that?
Just to add, echo that exactly. It's based on the useful life and replacement cost of each of the common elements. uh that then there's a calculation based on the age and the effective age how much should be in the in the bank account over time uh i do believe that section of required funding was removed at the last uh committee stop in the house though so i don't see that in the current version
okay it's just now it's just get the study done not necessarily funded okay i appreciate that
thank you both for your time thanks for your information much appreciated okay In our second panel, we have Molly Foley-Healy in person. Yes, please join us. Thank you for joining us. Please introduce yourself and who you represent, and you will have three minutes for your testimony.
Thank you, Chairman Axum. My name is Molly Foley-Healy. I'm a member of the Colorado Coalition for Responsible Associations, and I'm here to testify in support of the re-engrossed version of 1099 as introduced in the Senate. As a fellow of the College of Community Association Lawyers and an attorney who has specialized in community association law for 19 years, I strongly recommend support of this bill because it's phenomenal public policy. First of all, in terms of reserve studies, a reserve study is an essential budgeting tools for HOAs to financially plan for major repairs and replacements that the association is required to carry out over the life of the property. And I can tell you as an attorney who dealt with HOAs that have not funded reserves do not have a reserve study and haven planned the financial detriment to the homeowners can be significant It results in special assessments, going to a bank for a loan to cover costs that are not covered, that the association hasn't planned for. So the beauty of this public policy would be that at the time of transition to owner control, that means when the board of directors is controlled by the owners of the association, they can start budgeting. They have a tool to know the remaining useful life of the components the association is responsible for and can budget over time to ensure that when those components need major repairs or replacements, that there's funds in place to do that. The next provision of the bill that nobody's really talked about that I've been dealing with for quite a long time is following the management company licensure requirements being vetoed by the governor several years ago. We have found that HOA management companies, just some of them, fail to turn over the accounts and books of records of the association in a timely manner. In the last six months, I had one client where a management company didn't turn over their funds for four months. They were at risk to default on a loan, not pay insurance premiums. They were incurring late fees and interest charges. So the standard in the industry is 30 days to turn over, and this bill actually gives an extra 15 days for management companies to turn over the funds and books and records of the association to the new management company. to ensure the fiscal health of the association and they're not defaulting on their obligations. And also there's some penalties in this bill that I think are motivational to management companies that if they don't turn the funds over in an appropriate amount of time, they have to pay interest, late charges, damages of the association, and if they willfully fail to do so, they can also pay trouble damages. So it's motivational. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Ms. Foley-Healy. Thanks for your testimony. Committee questions for this witness? Seeing none, we appreciate your time. Thank you. Thanks for your information. You're welcome. That's all the people we have signed up to testify on House Bill 1099. Is there anyone else in the room or online that would like to testify that hadn't had an opportunity to do so? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. We are now to the amendment phase. Bill sponsors any amendments? No. God bless you. Committee, any amendments? God bless you too. All right, we'll do final wrap-ups. Who would like to start?
Senator Marchman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this bill does not create new government bureaucracy. It doesn't impose ongoing state oversight. All it does is set the table correctly at the beginning, and enforces a handoff at the end. It says if you're going to sell someone a home in a common interest community, give them the information they need to evaluate what they're buying. And if you're going to manage their money and records, you have to give them back. The House passed this 39 to 26. I ask for the same vote here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Senator Colker. I would just say I would love to have a unanimous vote you know instead of you know other than that all good all good We love to have unanimous votes everywhere wouldn we Okay
The proper motion, Senator Marchman, is to the Committee of the Whole.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1099 to the Committee of the Whole.
That's the proper motion. Any comments or questions before we vote? Yes. Do we need to? Yes. Okay. All right. We will take a quick Senate 205. That's okay. Thank you. Okay.
Ms. Alanzaro, please call the vote.
Senators Baisley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No. Lindstedt.
Aye. Liston.
It will be an aye for today. Marchman.
Aye. Rich.
No. Snyder.
Aye. Mr. Chair.
Aye. That passes on a vote of 5-2. Good luck on the floor. Thanks, committee. You bet. And we will take another quick Senate roll of 5 as we wait for our next bill sponsored, Senator Cutter. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. . . Well there he is. Okay. Our bill sponsor is here, and we will get started again. And we are on House Bill 1071 with Senator Cutter. Tell us about 1071.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on House Bill 1071. This legislation addresses a simple but urgent reality. Our interstates, which are designed for speed, efficiency, connectivity, have also become some of the most dangerous roads in our communities. When crashes occur at interstate speeds, the consequences are often severe or fatal. Local governments need practical tools to improve safety within their jurisdictions. This bill, House Bill 1071, gives municipalities the authority to deploy automated vehicle identification systems, known as speed cameras, on federal interstates. The bill is fundamentally about equipping communities with modern evidence-based tools to reduce dangerous driving behaviors where they are most likely to cause harm. Local governments already use this technology now on their roadways, and they use them in coordination with CDOT on state highways. And this bill just simply extends that authority to federal interstates. It's really important that we distinguish between two types of technology referenced in this bill. Automatic license plate recognition cameras, often referred to as flock style cameras, are not speed enforcement tools. These are designed to capture license plate information to help law enforcement identify vehicles associated with criminal activity, such as stolen cars or suspects involved in serious crimes. They do not measure speed, and their purpose is to investigate, and they capture far more data than the kinds of cameras that we're talking about here. Automatic vehicle identification systems, AVIS, or speed cameras, on the other hand, are really specifically focused on roadway safety. They detect and document vehicles traveling above posted speed limits and are used to enforce traffic laws consistently and objectively, which I appreciate about this. Numerous studies have shown that AVIS cameras reduce speeding and... decrease crashes, and save lives, particularly in high-risk corridors like interstates. This technology works, and House Bill 1071 takes a really important step in ensuring that our federal interstates are safe for Coloradans to get around our beautiful state. And I'm happy to answer questions, and then we have some witness testimony. Oh, I would like to say really quickly, I know there is going to be, there has been a concern raised that you'll hear from witnesses, and we will continue to work on this. So I want to acknowledge that, that we may have a little bit of refining to do. Thank you.
Committee, questions for our bill sponsor?
Yes, Vice Chair Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, are you bringing any amendments today? I was wondering if you might briefly describe this. Senator Cutter.
Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Not today, because a concern has just sort of surfaced, and I want to be able to think it through and work with them to create the best solution. But I am committed to continuing to listen and probably bring in an amendment on seconds. Does anybody else on the committee have a question for the bill sponsor?
Not seeing any. we'll go ahead and open up open up the witness testimony phase it looks like we've got a few signed up here a mix of in-person and remote okay Greg Fulton Motor Carriers Association is signed up remotely but I I don't think we have him on, so Mr. Greer Bailey. Dan Larson. Oh, okay, my apologies. So we have Greer Bailey, Greg Fulton, and George Merlin. Also in person. but not seeing anybody responding to that name. Oh, please come on up, sir.
Okay. Great.
Well, Mr. Merlin, if you're ready to go,
introduce yourself, who you represent, and we'll start your clock for testimony. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I want to start by thanking the sponsors for bringing this bill. I am George Marlin. I'm a county commissioner for Clear Creek County, speaking for both Colorado counties incorporated and counties and commissioners acting together in an amend position. We are supportive of the notion that local governments should be able to put these cameras on interstate highways. Both organizations were in support positions as this bill made its way through the House. It was when counties were written out of this bill that we went to amend. The rationale here, I think, for why counties need this is the same as why municipalities need this Speeding is very prevalent on interstate highways and really drives service demand for first responders So I took the time to speak to my EMS chief the fire chief and the sheriff for Clear Creek County They all agree that currently no one on the corridor has capacity to really meaningfully influence speeding behavior on I-70. They agree that speeding behavior on I-70 through Clear Creek not only drives service demand, but impacts public safety, as you're likely to hear from supporters of this bill in the municipal context as well. I think the reason that you're hearing from Clear Creek on this in particular, although this matters to every county, as indicated by both of these positions, both of these organizations having this position, is that the ratio of emergency services demand to tax base is really upside down for nearly every county in the state. And this is the local government with the least flexibility in how we can propose taxes and derive revenues. So we're struggling to understand why counties would not be included. Clear Creek is perhaps the most passionate on this issue because we are perhaps the most upside down when you think about 10 million visitors driving along I-70 a year. No, not a year. Those are actual visitors to Clear Creek County and a population of 9,200 people trying to come up with adequate revenues to take care of everything that's going on up here. So we're hopeful that in the Senate, as opposed to what happened in the House, we can come up with some context within in which it's appropriate to allow counties to install Avis cameras on interstate highways. We feel the rationale should be no different in the unincorporated areas. And so thank you, and thanks again to the bill sponsors for bringing this bill. It matters a lot. We hope to be included.
Thank you, sir. And if you'll stand by, we'll hear from our other witnesses before we open it up to questions. I see we have Mr. Greg Fulton online.
Mr. Fulton, if you want to turn on your camera, if you can, that'd be great.
Otherwise, you can go ahead and introduce yourself, and we'll start your clock for testimony.
Mr. Fulton. One second, Mr. Chairman.
All right.
Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman?
Yes, we can hear you.
Very much, okay. First off, thank you for your time today. My name is Greg Fulton. I'm the president of the Colorado Motor Carrier Association. You know, this is a follow on to a bill that actually we presented in 2024. And at that time, you know, when we talked about the whole issue related to, you know, highways and that one of the assurances that we had on this is the issue about the university. And that we were assured at that time it would be only done after safety analysis by CEDA and CSP. And then we also understood that it would be CSPs being the ones doing the enforcement on this. And let me note that, you know, that's a major part of the concern here. One is the situation is that we represent the industry that has a number of trucks that are coming across the country, interstate truckers. You know, many cases, those are what we call slip seated trucks, where it's more than one different driver may drive that in a given day, trying to even get that ticket to the company. And let me say this, this is actually where we're looking at the way speed and other violations should is they should go actually to the driver not to a company or try to have us track it down which would be extremely difficult especially with some of our larger companies and even if the state could get the right address on this. Frankly, we would much rather have a law enforcement officer out there, and the reason we would say that as well is the fact that one of the things under the federal law is that we can't mask violations, and we view this as masking. In a sense, actually, if we have a speeding violation, and we want it to appear actually on there. And frankly, I would just say that there's been a lot of serious questions as to the effectiveness of even photo radar as we have at Europe. We've had photo radar in the metropolitan area for at least 10 years or more. In the last 10 years, actually, in the city of Denver, we've ended up going up actually to the highest point that we have in fatalities, 2025. We have had a 21% increase here, and that's not alone, actually. So the point is, is whether this is even an effective strategy. Second, what we're really concerned about also is the fact that, you know, how and actually the funds are being used. In many cases, what we have seen is a number of communities actually looking at the term, especially in these difficult times, actually help fund the, you know, in terms of the city or the county on this end of it. this end of it. We have three communities in our state that actually end up where 40 to 53% of their funds come from actually traffic violations and affect actually much of their public services. So the question is, is whether that's really about safety or about revenue on this end of it. We would also note that the fact is, is that when we're looking at this, is we're looking to have a balkanization actually in terms of this, we have this in different ends of it. I can understand the interest in terms of face of wheat waste and looking at that they have two sites within the city. Those two sites from June of last year actually already generated over $200,000 traffic violations. You would have like something like five-fold the amount of traffic on I-70 and which is what they're looking to do and the question really comes down to is they're not the group that
maintains or actually makes the improvements on height 70 that is actually cedar mr fulton you're
running a little over your time so if you could wrap up that would be much appreciated i'm sorry
i didn't see my clock there i apologize there and i think on our end of it for those reasons
especially in the case at least actually having uh in the case of commercial vehicle drivers where we do not have actually the ability, it's going to the company versus a person responsible, we would ask at least that that would be actually exempted out of the bill. And we are not supportive of this measure. We would ask for a no vote. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. And now we'd like to hear from Greer Bailey.
Colorblind, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Greer Bailey. I'm the Executive Director of Colorado Iming Field Marketers. So I'm here today for the 470,000 fully loaded hazardous materials transport trucks that we run around the state every single year. I wanted to note for the proponents and the sponsors, 49 CFR 390.23, 49 CFR 390.3, that exempts local municipalities from enforcement for carriers that are under emergency declaration, that are on hazardous materials routes and under other federal declaratory orders. I think that it important to note Greg point about masking Clearly safety violations are a joint responsibility between the company and the drivers but company policy prohibits drivers from exceeding posted speed limits in the case of hazardous materials And so when these local governments are going to be sending a ticket based on a license plate to the actual company, that seems to be targeting the wrong person. Finally, I think it's a little weird that local municipalities want to start regulating and generating fee-based, penalty-based income on roads that they do not support. They don't use their HUTF dollars to support state highways, and they certainly don't use it to support federal highways. So I am curious why there's not an allowance for CDOT and CSP to put a bunch of cameras on municipal roads or county roads if this is kind of an equal opportunity type of revenue generation bill. I would like to say that we do try really hard as fuel marketers. I know our friends in the trucking industry are on our same page. To continue to support local communities in the case of impact fees, Senate Bill 260 fees that all go to the HETF that could be used for enforcement and increased support for highways and stuff. I wish that was reciprocally forwarded by our local community partners. finally I do think that if you're going to be generating a bunch of revenue on roads that you don't support that there should be a direction that this should go at the minimum to the first responder community the revenue generated off interstate highways or at least to road funding considering that's who would be generating these penalties and or assessments men position didn't testify in the House, there's certainly process, things that could be legitimately raised about that. That's what I wanted to offer today. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Any questions for either, any of these three witnesses?
Please, Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Mr. Bailey, thanks for being here. Would you like to expound just a little bit? I kind of liked your idea about that if there were to be financial penalties for speeding or whatever, that it would go to the EMS services or somewhere else rather than just in the general fund for CDOT. Could you expound just a little bit if you want? Mr. Bailey?
Yeah, I think that if, thank you Senator Lisson, yeah I think that if local municipalities and counties want to start assessing penalties on roads that they don't support, that at the minimum it should go to some sort of transportation related purpose. Petroleum marketers, and I know I speak for my friends at the motor carriers, we 100% are huge supporters of the law enforcement community. We constantly try to provide them more money. We constantly try to mitigate that. It would seem to me if you're going to allow this ability for local municipalities to generate revenue off roads that they don't maintain, that it should at least go to a road-related purpose. but that's just me thank you anybody else have any questions for these witnesses
i do have a question for you mr folden or mr bailey um this conflict and the fact that this bill would be contrary to federal law is rather concerning for me so walk me through this So you're an interstate trucker. You get a ticket on I-70. They're going to use a camera. They're going to locate who that truck is registered to, which very well could be the trucking company. I believe that's what you call masking when it's actually the individual driver who should get the ticket. But this would be going to the trucking company, wherever they may be located, anywhere in the country, I guess, for an interstate entity. so um do you see any way to resolve that conflict other than removing commercial trucks off the out of the bill
mr chairman this is greg fulton um no i i think it's going to be very difficult part of the problem that we have is you know you're almost condemning that company or whatever but we do want to end up having to go back to the driver we hold them accountable on this end of it and the masking end of it is a situation where, you know, realistically right now, what it doesn't even allow you to do under federal law is saying like, you know, pleading down like, okay, we're going to write this for like a, you know, sort of a, in terms of bad turn signal versus a speeding ticket. I mean, it's intended to actually reflect truly what's going on out there in terms of the driver's record. Even getting actually to that, you know, we almost are condemning even a company or whoever actually, I mean, trying to get the driver to a late penalty on this because trying to end up finding and getting it to the right company in terms of, you know, the different terminals and all this end of it there is just a nightmare. I mean, and then trying to get to the company. And then the other thing I think, and we've talked about this even to our friends and the Keemsters on this end of it is, you know, what happens here is, you know, if this comes back toward the driver, one of the things that happens is it's assumed no matter what conditions happened prior to this or around this, that the driver actually had no reason for actually maybe going at a little, say, where he was accelerating because somebody was actually really effectively maybe getting out of control actually behind them or anything like this. And in that case, the company themselves, on a disciplinary action, could actually hold them accountable, affect their record with the company in terms of suspension, even though the fact it would not be on their driving record. So we have several problems on that end of it. We've said, look, Mr. Bailey and our group have been very supportive of State Patrol. We've actually provided additional funding. actually sought to actually have more funding to the commissioner's viewpoint putting more funding after on i-70 we've supported in terms of special but even if that does actually if you were getting the revenue from this it should go probably to seed otter state patrol on this who or the state highway fund on this end of it because that is really where actually if you're looking actually who's maintaining and improving those highways that get those entities.
Thank you. Mr. Bailey.
Yeah, just one last point on that. I know that the Avis system and the sponsor has obviously done our research. Technology is great. But I would also say that it's a picture in a moment in time. So if you think about something like the left lane restriction bill that passed last year from Senator Roberts right If you have a camera and you have a commercial motor vehicle not in the left lane in the center lane and that the picture that taken and do they get a ticket for that? Or is it limited just to speeding? Or is it the discretion of whoever's operating the camera? Because there's nuances in that law, right? Where if the commercial motor vehicle is passing somebody who's going below the posted speed limit, like is that something that a company is going to get a ticket for based on the subjectivity of the municipality or whoever is operating the camera on the interstate? I think that there are additional questions that probably should be vetted. It's an interesting idea, though. Thank you.
One final question. My understanding was back when Avis was first allowed and started operating here in Colorado, there was supposed to be a safety analysis done by CDOT and CSP. Do you know if that ever happened? That's a great question.
Either, Mr. Fulton, do you know the answer to that?
I think what, you know, and I may, I would probably defer to CDOT on this, but I think when it came to actually sites on this, or elements where like looking at the interstate, It was actually CDOT and CSP would do actually required to do an analysis on this, you know, to establish whether it was justified. At that time, though, our understanding has been is that they would end up essentially installing it themselves on this. And it would be essentially that we would have at least a uniform and consistent process if it was CSP or CDOT rather than have individual communities on this actually having this go forward. So I think it's on a C dot in terms of CSP doing an analysis as to the safety end of it and whether it was justified to have that.
Thank you.
And if I'm reading this correctly, Mr. Merlin, counties are not part of this bill. So the county sheriff, he's not going to be, or the county itself won't be, is putting Avis cameras on interstate highways. It's only municipalities. Is that correct?
It is. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Originally counties were in this bill. They were amended out of this bill in the House. And I'm pretty sure my read of existing statute, and I don't think it's being changed by this bill, is the process by which counties have to go through or local governments in any context have to go through to establish that there is indeed an issue to be solved. Boulder County, if you're, if you are curious, is leading the way among counties at least. And I do believe there's a fairly robust process they've gone through with CDOT to do exactly, exactly what was just being discussed in terms of establishing a need. Okay.
Thank you. Any other committee questions for these three witnesses? Not seeing any. Thank you all very much for your time here today. Okay. We've got next panel of witnesses. We'll call up Dan Larson in person, Chris Murtha in person And Bev Stables also in person Ms Stables why don you lead us off Introduce yourself who you represent and we start your clock Thank you so much Mr Chair Good afternoon members of the committee
My name is Bev Stables. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 municipal members. I'm testifying today in support of House Bill 1071. Road safety is a very serious issue for our members, and House Bill 1071 provides municipalities with necessary tools to keep our roads safe. Local governments can already deploy this technology on our own roadways and on state highways with CDOT, and CDOT can also deploy these on the interstate. Allowing local governments to do the same will create greater partnership between municipalities and the state to deter dangerous and reckless driving. As you have heard, I just want to emphasize, there is a very important difference between automated license plate recognition cameras, also known as FLOC, and automated traffic enforcement, also known as AVIS cameras. AVIS cameras are red light and speed cameras, and obviously for the purposes of the federal interstate highway, They would be only speed cameras. Avis is used for traffic safety, crash reduction, and is intended to modify behavior. It does not track vehicle movement across multiple jurisdictions. It does not automatically compare plates to criminal hot lists for investigative purposes. I also want to quickly address earlier testimony regarding counties being included in this bill. As you heard, the introduced version of House Bill 1071 did include counties, and Colorado State Patrol explicitly requested that they be removed because CSP is the primary responder for traffic enforcement on the interstates. However, we do understand counties' concerns and are more than happy to continue conversations to address those concerns. We are all very familiar with dangerous and reckless drivers, and that behavior puts everyone in our community at risk. Because local governments are expending resources to enforce traffic laws on the interstate, because we are the primary responder on interstates in our jurisdiction, and because we care deeply about road safety in our communities, we need better tools like Avis. Please support House Bill 1071 to help local governments improve road safety in our communities. Thank you.
Thank you. And now Dan Larson. And I'm going to defer to Chief Murtha for comments first. Chief.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. I'm Chief Chris Murtha of the Wheat Ridge Police Department. For those of you who may not know, and I hope you do, we're just a small city outside of Denver with I-70 that runs through us and a bevy of state roads that also run through our municipality that our 90 officers serve. I'm here to respectfully ask you for your consideration to allow municipal police departments under 26-1071, including Wheat Ridge, to utilize automated vehicle identification systems, commonly known as speed cameras, on interstate highways. Under current law, state law, we are prohibited from using this technology on the interstate system. Yet the reality is when you call 911, you get a Wheat Ridge officer. That's our resource. That's our taxpayers paying for work on the highway. You don't get state patrol. We handle all the crashes, criminal activity, debris call, and everything in between. often in direct support of Colorado State Patrol, who is unable to handle all of the municipal jurisdictions that run through I-70. So we are the primary jurisdiction. Make no mistake about it. We expend resources to do this work. And without any formal agreement that requires us to do so, I did research, and there is no MOU or other IGA that asks us to do this. We do this because some years ago somebody made a handshake agreement. The reality is enforcing speed limits on the interstate highway is inherently dangerous High speeds heavy traffic volume and challenging road design particularly in the curves on I and Wheat Ridge make traditional traffic stops very difficult almost impossible in many cases unsafe for both officers and the public We average over 280 accident responses on I-70 each year. This is no small problem, and many of these accidents have to do with driving behavior and speed. Over the last 18 months alone, we've experienced five fatalities on this stretch of highway. Each of these accidents requiring hundreds of hours of investigation, reconstruction, court testimony, and follow-up. We already have a proven solution. Wheat Ridge operates a robust and reliable speed camera program within the city limits that has reduced and shown definitive results in reducing behavior. One that functions effectively, accurately, and without issue. If allowed on the interstate, the same technology could enforce speed limits with a consistent threshold of 10 miles an hour over the posted 65 mile an hour speed limit without the risks of traditional enforcement. This is not about revenue generation. The fiscal return is actually modest and I'd love to explain that to you. Offsetting the cost of our operations is not what this is about. This is about public safety. It's about reducing crashes, saving lives, allowing officers to focus their time where it's most needed. Tickets are generally $40 a civil violation mailed to the owner of the vehicle. Unless it's in a vulnerable area like a school zone or construction zone. There is no impact on insurance rates and we have successfully dealt with all the obstacles that have come up including work vehicles, trucks, and leased cars. Making sure we get those violations to those people in a timely manner. We're already doing the work on these interstates out of commitment not obligation and we're not asking to step away from that commitment. We know our state patrol can't do that work. We're simply asking for more tools to do it safely and more effectively. Leveraging technology is a practical way, especially in a flat budget year, as you all know, and a modern solution that benefits everyone on the road. Thank you for your consideration and as one of my officers always says, the best way to beat a ticket is to slow down and obey the speed limit. So I leave you with that as my final thought. Thank you.
Thank you, Chief. And Mr. Larson, I didn't catch you. Are you an elected official? Yes, sir, I am.
City Councillor? City Council, yes, sir.
Okay, great. Councilor, if you'd still like to give your testimony, we're ready to hear it.
Yes, I would. Thank you. And good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dan Larson. I live in Wheatridge. I am a member of the Wheatridge City Council, having been elected in November of 23. I am here today to respectfully affirm the Wheatridge City Council's support for House Bill 1071. This is local government vehicle identification systems on interstate highways, otherwise known as AVIS on the interstate. On October 28, 2024, the Wheat Ridge City Council approved a code amendment that allows our police department to deploy an automated vehicle identification system at specific locations around the city. This includes 44th Avenue at Anderson Park and on 32nd Avenue at our high school. From the beginning, our intent was to get drivers to slow down. In the 12 months since these speed cameras were deployed, the results clearly show the effectiveness. At both speed camera locations, the number of civil citations issued for speeding has declined. The results clearly show that drivers will slow down to avoid getting a citation in the mail. As you heard from Chief Mertha, the police department frequently responds to traffic accidents on the seven-mile stretch of Interstate 70 that runs through Wheat Ridge. WRPD officers spend hundreds of hours investigating these sometimes horrific crashes as a service in the absence of State Patrol. The time spent by WRPD on crash investigations and traffic management on one of the busiest highways in our state is not compensated. Allowing city police to deploy these fair and accurate speed cameras on the interstate and the process by which each violation is reviewed by a sworn officer will compensate the city for their time, while at the same time helping to reduce speed-related crashes and fatalities. To be honest, I am not a big fan of speed cameras, mostly because I have been cited for speeding in my car or on my motorcycle in the past. But the results speak for themselves. Avis cameras reduce speeding. If there's a better, more effective technique that is proven to reduce speeding on our highways that does not involve deploying police officers, I have not seen it. Deterring speeding on the interstate and the resulting decline in high-speed crashes will allow our police officers to spend more time in the community where they can make a real difference in the quality of life. Please support HB 1071. Thank you.
Thank you. Folks, committee, do we have Senator Liston, please?
Thank you. Sir, I just walked in. I apologize. Your name?
Dan Larson. Dan Larson, I'm a member of the Wheat Ridge City Council. Sir, okay, very good.
Well, and to your point, I live in Colorado Springs, and I brought this up, and you said if there's another idea that we'll reduce speed. Well, let me give you one in all sincerity to everybody, is when we are on I-25, and it's probably the same on I-70, a lot of times painted on the highway are big, colorful, I'll say signs, colorful, you know, that says I-25, I-70, you know what I'm talking about. I mean, you can see them from like 200, 300 yards away, and they're very big. I live in Colorado Springs and a major intersection that we have there we have cameras the whole apparatus but what we don't have that I think would make a huge difference to your point is on the roadway as you're coming to the intersection have a big imprint that says speed cameras ahead or something that will people will say gosh there's a speed camera or there's a red light or whatever you want to call it, that would cause people to slow down, I guarantee you. So that is my suggestion, is for municipalities, especially at some of these major intersections, it can't be that expensive to paint with good solid paint like they do on the interstate, the imprint, speed camera head or whatever, and people will see it and they will slow down. Don't you agree?
thank you senator i appreciate that miss stables did you want to respond i did i just wanted to
also say thank you chair and thank you senator for the question there are already requirements in state statute for the type of signage that a local government or cdot needs to post to let drivers know that a speed camera you're about to enter a zone for a speed camera um and i think if there are additional sign, like even more signage that would be useful, then we'd be open to those conversations. It doesn't fit under the title of our bill. However, I would also say signage only does so much. I think having an actual penalty in addition to signage goes a long way to deter that type of behavior. Chief, did you want to respond, please? Just quickly, signage on the interstate is
controlled by CDOT through our federal partners and laws And there really a there been a crackdown lately especially on the type of signage that we so we couldn independently do that And these would be designated speed corridors So they would be really still overseen by the state on behalf of the federal government. We couldn't just go out there and decide what we wanted to do. But if they were willing to do it, yes. But I think under code right now in the federal law, which is what they have to follow, You can't put certain signage on the pavement unless it's for certain reasons. So maybe that's a different discussion with the feds.
Senator Liston. Thank you. And I appreciate that. But if there's a will, there's a way. If you put the signs directing traffic like I-25, I-70, or all the different places where we see it, what is effective there? Why wouldn't it be effective to put on the interstate, whatever, speed corridor, do something that will make people slow down? I agree because there are crazy drivers out there, and if it helps slow them down a little bit, at least try it. I don't think anybody's opposed to that, any tool at our disposal. But, again, this is a more nimble body than a federal government, and I'm not sure if I went up there they would care what I had to say about the highways, but I would certainly be willing to try it. I'd put a speed bump there if it slowed it down, but I don't think I have the ability to do that. Okay. Point made, I think you hear me.
Thank you. Any other questions?
Chair Exum. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony, and Chief, thanks for your service. Chief, my concern is possible abuse of the use of these cameras. Any thoughts on that?
Chief? Yes. Like I was saying, we've actually gone through the process to get a camera on a state road because they're not exempted from the Avis bill that this body has agreed to. So we're actually getting one. We've been approved for one on Kipling, which is another accident-prone road in our jurisdiction. The controls are really in place, and I think that's why the legislative body has taken this up and said, okay, we're confident with the controls that we've put in place to make sure that people are not abusing this. And I've seen certainly a few jurisdictions that have abused it. We are very much aligned with what the spirit and the intent of the law is, and we are following that. And we are also being held to account by CDOT, who oversees these programs. So there's no ability for us to abuse it. It's an open book. There is transparency regulations that we have to post the amount of citations we have. So it would certainly come to somebody's attention if we had an inordinate number of citations and the speed at which we were violating people for. It's pretty much accepted that 10 miles an hour over is the accepted CDOT speed right now. We follow what they do. It's just an ability for us to have some control over the accidents. because right now we are just willing participants in the carnage that goes on there without really having any tool to affect or impact that. So this is what we're asking is how do we say to our citizens we can justify our expenses up on the highway, but we can never change it. We want to change driving behavior and create public safety. That's my job, and that's what I'm really held to account for, creating public safety. Thank you, Chief.
any additional questions I do have a question for you Ms. Staples did you hear Mr Fulton from the motor carriers expressing their concerns so I was wondering if you could maybe answer some questions starting with are you aware of any CDOT or CSP safety analysis that already been done
Do you mean safety analysis on the use of Avis altogether? I believe that's what was committed to when Avis first came on the scene. Sure. So, I mean, it's a great question. And so from what I understand from CDOT is they have the 119 pilot program that I think just started in January. So I don't believe that they have a report put together quite yet on it. But it sounded like, and I could go back and double check the exact number, but they were seeing, I think, upwards of like 60% reduction in crashes from using that technology. So I'm happy to follow up if they have additional reports. But if you look at other states that utilize this technology, a lot of studies have really encouraging data on how much crashes are reduced, how much fatalities are reduced, and also just how much general speeding is reduced. It's significant.
Okay. And I think, well, I guess it was also concerned expressed about municipalities getting revenue off of roads they are not responsible for and don't contribute to the maintenance of. But I think Chief Mertha just said that there's really no opportunity for this to be a revenue windfall. I mean, it's really in the spirit of increasing public safety and reducing, I guess, what we call crashes now, no longer called accidents. Oh, sorry, go ahead. I think they would be fine. But looking down the list of the motor carriers' concerns, what about this masking? What about this conflict with federal law that says you can only issue a ticket to the actual driver, and that's to protect what they call masking so you wouldn't know who it was? Do you see that as a problem?
Because I'm understanding that a lot of these trucking companies will get summons or serve with a ticket like this, and they'll just toss it, figuring they don't have to comply. Yeah, certainly. So we are aware of the motor carriers concerns with the use of Avis generally. In our view, this bill is not the proper vehicle, if you will, for solving more general concerns around enforcement of Avis. There's actually very likely going to be a cleanup bill coming during this session from some of your colleagues to try and address more of those broad concerns. There's some cleanup that I know CDOT is interested in, and I think that that would be the appropriate place for resolving any outstanding issues. But I know that it's been an ongoing conversation between CDOT and the motor carriers for many years. I just don't think that our bill under 1071 is the appropriate place to address those concerns, because I just don't think it fits under the bill title.
Okay. Well, I guess I'm just – Chief, Martha, please.
If I can just answer a couple questions for you. We do have a court process to deal with issues just in general, so you understand that anybody can dispute a violation. But we also have a way to deal with issues where we know for example an officer was going to a call or an emergency responder was going to a call to simply reach out and have a supervisor verify those things So it possible that a motor carrier that falls under federal law could very simply mail in a dispute and we could review that and have a conversation to find out if they actually would be eligible for relief under that and with respect to studies that have been done on roadways and tangentially i spoke to a colorado state patrol commander who told me if you're aware of the speed of the uh of the toll roads where they have the double lines now he said that those numbers have dropped between 80 and 90 percent since they started to do enforcement on those and mail citations so the technology has already been used in that way it's not speed it's for violating that road restriction until you get the right road signal to cross back in or out of the the toll lane so we've seen it work they've seen it work at a level that amazes me, but I would also add that this technology, if we don't use it, eventually in the future years, CDOT will deploy it. It's just a matter of who's doing the work there and are they going to be able to use this tool or is it going to go to CDOT and we're going to pull our resources off the highway and let them fund more patrol officers. So that's really what it boils down to. And we want to help our patrol, our state patrol, because they're under, you know, understaffed in many of our metropolitan areas, and we're there anyway. So we're not trying to do that. But that's kind of the choice we have to make. Why are we doing this? And I have to answer to the taxpayers. Why are we sending our folks up on the highway, an interstate highway, without funding from the feds to do the work there? Thank you. Thank you. Chief, I do have one
Final question. So right now, you know, if an officer's on the highway or really anywhere, sees somebody speeding, pulls them over, and they were going 21 miles an hour over the limit. If memory serves, 20 and over is an automatic reckless driving charge. It requires a court appearance. The officer at that time, he may decide that, well, you know, get your tires done right. There's a lot of reasons why a speedometer may not be correct. But he may lower that speeding charge on the scene. I don't know if that is kosher or not, but I know that that happens. And with this, that possibility is taken away. Because it's a machine, Avis tells you this is how fast they were going. so there's none of that interpersonal officer discretion being used in this case. Does that cause any concerns for you? Actually, you know, over the last five years, we've had a lot of consternation about police-public interactions. So not having to have an officer confront somebody and argue by the side of the road about a citation or about their potential biases, you stopped me because of this reason, is eliminated through the use of this program, I think. So there is that discretionary part of it, but for years we've debated, is that really right to just lower the speed for somebody on a highway? I mean, did you see them doing the lower speed, and then you decided that you're going to cite them for that? And those are actually points on a license that would be attributed to your insurance, potentially, or a loss of your license. So there's a much higher penalty, punitive outcome, if you're stopped, potential punitive outcome if you're stopped by an officer. You may hope for the grace, but you may get the hammer. And really, we want to be fair and consistent. That's what I want out of police officers, fair and consistent, and that's what the camera does. You set the limit. Everybody knows what the rules are, and it's not like ambiguous. If I'm really able to talk my way out of things, and I'm a good communicator, maybe I this officer over. We want everybody to be treated fairly, equally, and the same, and respectfully. We value their time. We value that they're stopped on the side of the road. They're doing zero, and cars are doing 70, 80 miles an hour next to them, and if that person looks at their phone, we're all in trouble.
Thank you. Senator Liston.
Yeah, I was just going to say, Senator Schneider, is there something you would like to confess to us? i've i've had the hammer and uh and the uh the sweetener both in my lifetime one one final thought chief um you know i was i came from washington dc area i went back there oh gosh it must have been eight more years ago now and they had recently put in cameras like this not on interstates but in other places and you know for somebody who grew up knew the streets i was driving on down georgia avenue everybody's going 50 suddenly everybody's going 35 and you travel for 100 yards or so and then everybody goes back up to 50 so quickly people learn where these cameras are and adjust their behavior accordingly so are you envisioning a where you'd have a fixed camera site or would it be something you could move to different parts of i-70 as they travel through wheat ridge or well yeah so i i actually come from outside dc and in the kensington if you know where that is and i did my work in prince george's county so i'm familiar with speed cameras my children have given me hundreds of tickets on on our behalf as the registered owner and i certainly think that a parent talking to a child has certainly more influence than an officer sometimes because they want to go out on the weekends and they don't get that car we have a mix of fixed and mobile. Fixed is really not a true term. Our fixed cameras are still movable and doesn't cost us anything to move them. They're just on a pole and our trailer cams are moved around, actually moving our trailers already because we've done the work in one area and we want to keep people from getting used to the area. I know it from Connecticut Avenue where most of my kids' tickets come from that they knew exactly when to hit the brakes and exactly when to punch the gas and you could hear everybody on the highway doing it so we also have a handheld camera that does exactly the same thing it is a mobile called a dragon camera and it gives out civil violations but an officer holds it in different locations so people know in wheatridge that's why we've had such a reduction in collisions around especially our high school and our vulnerable population because they like to go to the park across the street and we seen we seen a city reduction in accidents because the reputation becomes this is an area with speed cameras and I don know where they always going to be So moving them around every couple months and making sure that when we see the reduction, it's not about public safety, not about, oh, we're not making as much money. That's a great thing. We'd love to be out of business in the speed camera world, but we're not there yet, and we know we need to keep people a little off balance as to where they can predict they are. So if you're in Wheat Ridge, know that you need to keep up with the spots. We advertise them. We put them on our website. But you need to check the website when you're driving through Wheat Ridge. We sure come a long way from the little towns on the way to Ocean City, Maryland, that had their 25-mile-an-hour speed limit sign. Unfortunately, it was blocked by a giant oak tree. And I believe that contributed quite a bit to the city's coffers. Too familiar with those. Yes.
Any other questions for these witnesses? not seeing any thank you all very much so this is last call for anybody who wishes to testify on House Bill 1071 in the room nobody waiting in the online waiting room and with that we will close the witness testimony phase and bring our bill sponsor back up We'll open the amendment phase. Do you have any amendments today?
No, no amendments today.
Committee, any amendments for 1071? None? Close the amendment phase. That brings us to wrap up.
Thank you very much, committee and Mr. Chair, for hearing this today. A couple of things stood out during testimony and some interesting questions. I appreciate the committee. But I really loved it when Chief Murtha talked about being fair and consistent. I mean, I think that's incredibly important. And I know there's a lot of discussion about cameras these days. And I think the Avis camera accomplishes something really important. It protects the health and safety of people in general and really helps our police officers do their job. And in a fair and consistent manner, which I think is incredibly important. And, you know, you heard about some of the issues when police do confront people and some of the danger that can be involved with that. So it sort of removes that. And honestly, it also protects people from being stopped for their identity. People are stopped because they're speeding or people are captured. Their license plate is captured because they're speeding only because they're speeding. So I really appreciate that Automated vehicle identification systems are objective and effective way to enforce speed limits reducing crashes and fatalities Municipalities need these tools to ensure that road safety is a reality on interstates and safe roads are essential for Coloradans way of life Ultimately, this bill will make our roadways safer. It's about giving municipalities the ability to act before tragedy strikes rather than just responding to the tragedy. It's about making sure that roads people rely on every day for work, for family, for life, are as safe as we can possibly make them. And I do, I stated this before, and I want to reiterate that we're happy to work with the counties to see exactly, you know, what, if anything, we can do to accommodate that, because those arguments were interesting for sure. And I think in terms of, I believe Ms. Staples may have said this, but some of the other issues may be more appropriate in a general Avis cleanup. That's not really specifically what this bill is addressing. So given all of that, I hope, and with my commitment to have further conversation about counties, I hope that you all will support this today. And thank you again for hearing it.
Thank you. Committee, any closing comments?
Senator Linstead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill. A very interesting discussion. I'll be a yes today. I do not know if you'll have me on the floor, but I will be a yes today so that we can continue those conversations.
Anyone else? Tony, Chair, did you have some comments, or are you going to move?
I'm just going to move it.
Go ahead.
I was going to say, well, thank you for bringing this bill. I'm a little concerned. You know, this is the second chamber. It's already been through the House. Second reading really is the only opportunity, should you be successful here today, to look at maybe some improvements and some amendments that might assuage or at least address some of the concerns that we've heard here today. I appreciate your commitment to keep working on this. I never know how to take the fact that there's another bill out there that might address some of these concerns. I try to just stick with the bill that's right before us. But I think we heard some pretty legitimate concerns from a segment of our economy, the commercial trucks who do an awful lot for the state of Colorado. I mean, they self-assess themselves over $10 million, approaching $15 million a year that they fund our hazmat teams. They fund cleanups of fuel distribution centers There a lot of great work that kind of flies below the radar because it not real exciting or sexy But I think when they bring legitimate concerns I think we need to listen to that And this conflict with masking and the federal law, I think, is still an issue. And I hope it's something that you will at least listen to. and if you can't address it, should you make it out of committee today?
And with that, a motion would be in order. Oh, Senator Lisson, did you have some comments?
I'll just be very brief. Thanks for bringing the bill. I'm intrigued by your offer to, you know, maybe work with the counties and others and bring some amendments. So I hope you do. I'll be a no for today, but I'm open to hear what you come up with because it was very interesting and I'm sure it's worthwhile. But just for the time being, I'll be a no to gently hold your feet to the fire to see what you come up with.
Sundar Baisley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be a polite no. As someone who's had to go to court twice on the same ticket, speed camera ticket, that wasn't even my car, and I had to go prove that. So at any rate, I find it problematic. But I also, you know, there's good arguments for her. I get it. The one that I want to point out that the Chief said that I especially appreciate is to avoid the contact between the officer and an exercised driver. I actually have a bill concept towards trying to accomplish that that maybe we can talk about offline. But at any rate, thank you for the bill.
Senator Exum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1071 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
That's a good motion. Would you call the roll, please? Senators Baisley?
No.
Lindstedt?
Yes for today.
Liston?
No for today.
Marchman?
A yes for today.
Rich?
I'm a yes for today.
Exum?
Aye.
Mr. Chair? Aye for today. It's 5 to 2. Yes, that's 5 to 2. You're on your way to the committee of the whole. And with no further bid, the local government and housing committee is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.