House Finance [Apr 16, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

The committee will come to order. Please call the roll. Representatives Brooks.

Camacho.

Graff.

Garcia.

Marshall.

Here.

He's okay.

Tatum.

Here. We have a quorum. Everyone, nice to see you. Thanks for being so patient and waiting. We have two bills up today. We're going to hear 1346 followed by 1119. As I announced from the well, given the late start and the number of witnesses we have, testimony will be limited to two minutes per person with seven minutes of questioning per panel. I would ask Representative Stewart to come up and take the gavel, while myself and Madam Vice Chair present 1346.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, so 1346, if you all recall, during the special session, And we had a couple bills that would get us some money ahead of time because we needed to make up some funds in our budget. And we were going to sell these tax credits to make up some money ahead of time before and then give some relief for taxes. We had a hard time selling these particular tax credits because we were selling to insurance companies. But the insurance companies don't buy this far ahead. And because they only want to buy from their tax liability in the year that they have the tax liability, they were not buying these credits in the full amount that we needed to. So we are adding in to this bill the ability for a broker to purchase these credits. They've already actually been purchasing some of these already on behalf of the insurance companies. But this would just make it so that way they could finish purchasing the rest of these for the future years that we need to get this money into the Treasury to take care of some of our liabilities. So we ask for a yes vote on this bill.

Let the record just show that Reps DeGraff and Camacho are present. Are there any questions for the bill sponsors?

Thank you, Madam Chair. No, this just changes the type of purchaser. So we were selling to insurance companies directly, but this would allow the brokers and the intermediaries to do it. Everything else would remain the same.

Rep. Tom. Thank you, Madam Chair. Rep. Camacho, I think there would be some kind of charge in the middle, but the risk more so is that we don't sell the rest of these credits and then we don't have the money that we were counting on that we put into place in the special session. I think that the Treasury could probably answer some of those specific questions or anyone who signed up as a witness as well.

Any other questions for the bill sponsors Representative Marshall Thank you Madam Chair So I guess I hold some of the questions I had that you know that I asked for when the Treasury gets up But my understanding is we've been selling these credits right now at an average of 82 cents on the dollar with a floor of 80 cents on the dollar. So there's not much margin more to lose on the bare minimum. But I guess the question would be if we're taking an 18% discount and these insurance companies are buying them literally three to four months before they're filing taxes. In the best case scenario, doesn't that work out to an annual percentage rate that any consumer advocate would go ballistic about that we're being charged to the government?

Any further questions for the bill sponsors? All right. Seeing none, we'll bring up our witnesses. We've got one panel. We've got a couple of folks who are here for questions only and a couple of folks in support, so I'm going to bring everybody up at the same time. We've got Leah, Marvin, Riley in person, Michael Johnson remotely, Skylar Shook in person for questions only, and Jim Eek online for questions only. Oh, you're here. Fantastic. Did I say it?

We'll start down here with Ms. Marvin Reilly. Please introduce yourself. You've got two minutes.

We'll go online to Mr. Johnson. Go ahead and unmute yourself. You've got two minutes. Michael Johnson, can you hear me?

We sure can.

Thank you so much. We'll come back in person. Would you both just introduce yourself for the record so folks know who to direct questions to?

Committee, any questions? Rep to graph.

Mr. Shuck.

Ms. Marvin Riley.

And Rep de Graff, I do want to clarify that these are tax credits that already exist.

Ms. Marvin Riley.

Any additional questions from the committee?

is there anyone else in the room who wishes to testify? All right, seeing none, the witness phase is closed. Come on back up, sponsors. Sponsors, do you have any amendments?

Committee, do we have any amendments? Seeing none, the amendments phase is closed. Wrap up, bill sponsors.

Okay, a proper motion would send House Bill 1346 to the Committee of the Whole. Representative Woodrow.

That's a proper motion and a second. Are there any closing comments from the Committee?

Reptograph. I'm not sure why I thought that I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. This is like we're taking on this, imagine, like I feel like I have a bunch of tax credits in my hand right now, and I'm willing to sell those to somebody in the future for a benefit today. So we're paying an interest of about 18%. So we're taking on a loan. We're taking debt. We're pulling money from the future into this, and then all we have to do to pull money from the future is to manufacture tax credits that are not used. So, yeah, this seems very much like a shell game. It encourages – I think it encourages a great deal of fiscal irresponsibility because, yeah, there's no limit to the amount of tax credits that we can gin up, not use, then sell, and then have a higher liability off in the future than the benefit we get now, which is I think called a loan, which is debt, which is something we're not allowed to have. So I'll be a no on the show game.

Any further comments from the committee? Seeing none, Ms. Culver, please poll the committee. Representatives Brooks.

Macho.

DeGraff.

Garcia.

Gonzalez.

Marshall.

Weinberg.

Zokai.

Tatum.

Woodrow.

Yes, that passes six to five. Congratulations. You're on the way to the cow.

Chair Woodrow, tell us about House Bill 1119.

Now we'll ask questions Who asked questions?

Chair Woodrow? Just for a point of clarification, are both parcels in the same jurisdiction in your hypothetical?

So, thank you for the question, Rep. Marshall. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I encourage you to ask this of witnesses as well, but my understanding is that the uniformity clause only requires that the mill levy that's levied be uniform across all property within each property class within each taxing jurisdiction. So there's nothing about splitting the mill levy into its two components that would mean that property owners are treated differently within the same taxing jurisdiction.

Chair Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Representative DeGraff. And you and I have had this spirited debate over whether or not zoning is a contract, and you know that I disagree with you. Zoning is a government policy that sets what type of construction can occur in a given geographic area. A contract is a bargain for exchange with offer acceptance and consideration You actually don have a contractual right to have your property taxes set in stone forever We know that That why we come down to this building for special sessions and harangue each other over what property tax policy and rates should be. So I take a different view. This isn't interfering with people's contracts. It would impact how certain folks are charged in assessed property taxes, And I have an analysis that was performed for Fort Collins, for Greeley, and for Denver that shows that overall most taxpayers, most property owners would actually see a slight decrease in their property tax bill, whereas some folks would end up seeing a slight increase. Of course, it has to be done in a revenue neutral way. So we're not talking about the government collecting more money. It's about who pays it. But according to our data that we have for those three jurisdictions, most people would actually see a slight tax decrease. And to your final point of we'd like to see a certain behavior, tax policy is used to incentivize and disincentivize behavior routinely across all sectors. And when we want to see more development, we can modify our tax policy to encourage that. when we are happy with surface-level parking lots, we can keep our tax policy at the status quo, which encourages that. So I appreciate your points and where you're coming from. I just don't think we see eye-to-eye on whether or not this is a fair use of tax policy.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Brenda Donis. I'm the Weld County Assessor. I'm testifying on behalf of the Colorado Assessors Association in opposition to the bill. The bill is concerning because it creates winners and losers, and it comes at a significant cost. So how does this work? Within a jurisdiction, you significantly increase the levy on the land, which means you have higher land tax. Then you drastically decrease the levy on the improvement, meaning the improvement tax is almost zero. You then have to find the average land-to-building value ratio, and then you start shifting the tax. A higher ratio is more tax. A lower ratio is less tax. It's very complex. So the easiest way to visualize it is parcel by parcel. If you imagine a typical lot size and if that building footprint is small and it doesn cover most of the parcel then the tax goes up That right a small house has the tax go up So small homes manufactured homes they going to actually see their tax go up. If the building footprint does cover most of the parcel or the improvement is

Thank you, Madam Chair and Honorable Members for hearing testimony today. I'm Douglas County Assessor Toby Domish. And speaking on behalf of the Assessors Association, I'd like to talk about assessment rates and how they are unique in Colorado and why they matter in this discussion. Assessment rates across the country typically are uniform for residential and non-residential property. In fact, there are only 10 states that provide favorable assessment rates to residential properties, such as homes, condominiums, and apartments. And among those, Colorado has the greatest spread in assessment rates. In Colorado, vacant land and other non-residential property is taxed at four times the rate of residential property. For example, in Denver, a parking lot valued at $1 million is taxed the same as, I'm sorry, A parking lot valued at $1 million is taxed the same as a small apartment building valued at $4 million. For a more common example, when a builder, investor, or residential lot owner puts a foundation on a vacant lot, the taxes typically drop nearly 75%. It is common for newly constructed homes in a neighborhood to be taxed the same as vacant lots in the same neighborhood. I say all this to make this point. The intent of this bill is already in place in Colorado property tax policy. The premise of the bill and the LVT policy is to shift tax burden to land so as to encourage higher densities, construction of housing units, and other activities. But this is already occurring here, this pressure with Colorado assessment rates. When developers, builders, and other investors purchase land here, they are very aware of the holding costs that are created by the non-residential rates that we have here, and their development clock starts ticking loudly immediately. I want to finish by comparing Colorado to some states that have been mentioned or have been considering split levy assessment rates or are using them. Pennsylvania does not reappraise on a regular schedule. There are counties that haven't reappraised in Pennsylvania in 20 years and others that have done in three years. So there's no equalization across that state. Virginia and Kentucky, I'll finish here, have equal assessment rates for residential and non-residential property, meaning that the spread that we have in Colorado doesn't exist there. And so they have a reason. or value in considering the split levy rate. I ask for your no vote today on the bill, and thank you for your time.

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Matthew Arvidsson. I serve as the chief deputy assessor for El Paso County. I am testifying today on behalf of the Colorado Assessors Association, which is opposed to the bill. My comments focus on how this bill would affect the property tax appeals process. Simply put, this bill would create new reasons for property owners to appeal and would increase both the number and complexity of property tax appeals in Colorado. It would also make the appeals process harder for the typical property owner to understand. The bill would introduce a new type of appeal focused on how value is divided between the land and improvements. Under current case law, tax mayors may only appeal the total value of their property. Because the bill allows the land to be taxed at a higher rate than improvements, property owners would have financial incentive to challenge values even when they agree with the total value of their property. These types of disputes are difficult to resolve because reliable and truly comparable land sales are limited. Once land is developed, its value becomes embedded within the improved property. Standard appraisal methods used across the country produce well-supported total property values, but they do not clearly show how the value should be divided between land and improvements. Appeal activity has already been rising in recent years as property values and attention to property tax policy have increased. Appeals begin with a protest to the assessor's office and can move through several additional levels of review. When appeals increase in number or become more complicated, the workload expands across the entire system. For these reasons, the bill would increase both the number of appeals and the complexity of each appeal, placing additional pressures on assessor offices and statewide appeals process. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am the Executive Director of the Colorado Assessors Association, and I'm testifying today on behalf of the association as opposition to this bill. I thank you for the opportunity. The increment value is a component of the tax increment finance known as TIF. TIF is a financial tool used to fund projects undertaken by urban renewal and DDAs. Examples of such are Streets of South Glen, the Conference Center in Aurora, and the Denver Union Station. There are approximately 300 active TIF projects in Colorado currently. The methodology and calculations are established by the Property Tax Administrator. An assessor's office will track development on the improvements and, most importantly, the new construction. The increase in value due to the project activity is captured as increment value. Increment value is cumulative and carried forward from year to year, beginning with the project's inception. Increment value becomes increment revenue. Revenue is applied towards the participating authority's mill levy, and that is what is used to repay bonds and projects. If the structure of the levy shifts emphasis towards the land and the repayment and the funding will be reduced As mentioned increment value is primarily derived from development of the improvements Subjecting it to a reduced levy would diminish those funds. We believe, for these reasons, we believe that applying a land value tax framework would have an adverse impact on TIP. it would create financial strain on current projects and jeopardize potential projects. We also believe that treating TIF areas differently is unconstitutional, as they do not levy. For this reason, we are asking for a no vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jonathan Norloff. I'm the Denver County Assessor. The city and county of Denver opposes this bill. While the bill is framed as a tool for local control, specifically for high density and rapidly changing cities like Denver, it introduces significant fiscal instability. In Denver's mature urban environment, this shift in tax burden risks unfairly penalizing long-term homeowners and small businesses. By shifting the tax weight to land, residents in established Denver neighborhoods and businesses could see sudden and significant tax hikes without a vote of the people. circumventing the spirit of existing taxpayer protections. Additionally, this bill, when woven in with the current setup, creates a patchwork of tax rules and an unfunded mandate for assessor's offices. Colorado's Property Tax Administration is already intricate. Requiring separate certifications and public reporting for varying mill levies adds a massive layer of complexity and a potential for error. This policy has the potential to force out local staples and existing housing in favor of high-density luxury development. Think small businesses on large lots, grandma's house, and established neighborhoods. Denver and Colorado needs predictable, fair tax policy to remain competitive and livable. HB 261119 adds uncertainty for Denver families and local businesses while creating a new complicated administrative burden. I urge the committee to vote no on this measure. Thank you.

I think I'm next. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Cynthia Braddock. I'm the Boulder County Assessor, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Colorado Assessors Association, who opposes this bill. In reviewing bills that impact property taxation processes, we consider the impact on our most sensitive properties, The properties that I'd like to speak to are those residential properties impacted by natural disasters. More than 1,000 properties in Boulder County were destroyed in the Marshall Fire. Nearing the five-year mark, we still are not 100% rebuilt. This means families have been displaced with temporary loss of community, and kids have been making longer commutes to their schools. Rebuilding is a traumatic, arduous, and stressful process of negotiating with insurance companies, mortgage companies, architects, builders, suppliers, and more. Under the current law, a residential property that has been destroyed by natural disaster keeps the preferential residential classification and given three to five years to rebuild, and they hold this classification. They carry only their land value with reduced taxes so they can focus on recovery. This bill increases taxes at a time when these properties are financially challenged, traumatized and unhoused Our property owners who have lost everything to a natural disaster deserve a break so that they can move back into home ownership and rejoin their communities I urge a no vote on this Thank you All right we have Mr Hughes online Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Brad Hughes, and I have had the honor of serving Montrose County as the assessor for the past 20 years. I'm appearing on behalf of the Assessors Association to formally oppose this bill. While the intent of this legislation may be well-meaning, I'd like to address a critical unintended consequence, and that's the disproportionate tax impact on manufactured home parks. The valuation of these parks is primarily driven by land value. This bill would lead to a significant increase in property taxes for these developments. These increased costs would inevitably be passed on to the tenants through higher rental lot rates. Manufactured home parks represent the state's largest inventory of unsubsidized affordable housing. By enacting this bill, we risk increasing the financial burden on our most vulnerable residents, including young working families, minorities, and senior citizens. I believe this bill contradicts itself by advocating for new affordable housing initiatives while simultaneously increasing the cost to our existing affordable housing options. Furthermore, this tax policy is regressive in nature. Under the proposed bill, modest homes with low-value properties are likely to see tax increases. Higher-valued homes with more affluent taxpayers may actually see tax decreases. Essentially, this bill shifts the tax burden to those who can least afford it. Because of these systematic inequities and the potential for economic hardship to our low-income property owners, I respectfully urge a no vote on this bill. And thank you for your consideration.

May I have permission to dialogue briefly?

Thank you for your testimony. I heard from the sponsor that there was a study. Maybe this is for the Denver Assessor, since I'm from Denver. I kind of carry your response. In that study, have you seen it? The sponsor said that it would actually lower tax rates in Denver. Do you have an opinion on that?

Is it fair to say that the target of populations will be some of our older adults, our established neighborhoods in East Denver, communities that have been traditionally overlooked, such as Globilla, Liria, Swansea, those folks? Any areas that, I mean, I call them established neighborhoods that have high land values would be at risk of this. Any particular lots in this instance, if somebody has a larger lot than normal, is vulnerable to something like this. And looking at it, too, the other part is just that these, most cases, these go to bigger homes and not to more affordable housing measures as intended. I'll come back to you.

But when we have a house that's for sale, we usually look at comps, comparable properties, to see what that value could be in the assessment. how is it not kind of the same thing when it comes to land? If you have a parking lot that's sold or an empty lot that's sold in a year, in that same year, how can you not make that comparison to that property? Or what is the difference?

Ms. Stones, I'm sorry. Thank you for the question, Representative and Madam Chair. I think the difference is that we can tell the value of vacant land. Vacant land sells. There's buyer and seller negotiation. And so we're easily able to identify the land value when it's vacant. I think the statement was made that once it has an improvement on it and that buyer and seller are negotiating the value of the total property, it's very rare on an improved property that a buyer and seller are saying, what do you think the value of just the building is and just the land is? And so we're going to negotiate independently on those pieces. Instead, they're negotiating on the total property, the total sale price of that property. And so that's what the information that assessors receive as well. And that's what we use in order to value both the land and the improvement. We absolutely value both. We're only required to report the total value. And so if you have, I mean, everyone always says location, location, location. So if it's downtown, it's going to be closer to where you can make money if it's a commercial property or something you want to build. That has an inherent value to it. I know that when you buy a new home and it has a good view on it, you pay a lot premium from the builder. That has an inherent value because the view is going to make your property worth more. So it seems like there is a way to assess what kind of value a property has. And a lot of times when I look at different listings, it'll say, you know, it has a view and has these lakeside and things like that. So is it just that this bill needs to require the assessment of the land to be done on a less frequent basis? I mean, is that something that would improve this bill or am I just going the wrong direction?

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. Your description was absolutely right on. We identify those exact characteristics that you said you see in listings. We're looking at the sales of property and identifying when there is vacant land. we're using those vacant land sales in order to value all other property, whether it's vacant or improved. We're using those land sales to help us identify that land value. The challenge for assessors is when there's absolutely no vacant land sales. So you can imagine a downtown area, maybe in a smaller community, maybe something not like downtown Denver, or maybe downtown Denver is a good example, but you don't have any vacant property, nothing in that area. And so you don't have a good measure in order to know exactly what that land value is. But what you're doing is you're saying, I have all these vacant land sales around that, and I'm going to estimate my land value with those sales, and then I'm going to adjust them because we know the downtown area is worth more. So we're going to increase our land value in the downtown areas in order to increase that value. This bill doesn't really have anything to do with the land value at this moment, except that it's going to tax the land much higher than the improvement. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Assessor Damish. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Camacho. Sorry, can you repeat the question? I lost track of it. I lost track of my question earlier, so I had to write it down. So it's been argued that this is voluntary. You have to opt into this. Yeah, one thing that we haven't covered yet, because we really did try to trim down the topics that we're going to talk about today, was complexity and cost. And so when we talk about mill levies, assessment rates, and assessments themselves, those three components of the property tax system, they're at the core, at the skeleton of our entire process, and all of our systems. When public policy starts tinkering with that, that's when we have the greatest amount of risk. It's when we have the greatest amount of cost to update these systems, and we have the greatest amount of complexity in managing that change. And so we heard about the two-year amendment, if I could mention that earlier, and that's great because this would not be possible to do in any time frame shorter than that. It just wouldn't be. We have spoken with all of our software vendors, and they've started giving us estimates of the cost to update our software. We've heard numbers that are six figures per county across the state. Now, the one thing that might abate that is there aren't that many systems that we have, three, four, or five systems that work in this space. This isn't something that can be done in spreadsheets or in databases. We need the business systems that are very complicated and very expensive to be updated to do this. And then we have to rebuild our complex business process to accommodate that. So if we compare that to what's happening, say one district in Tana Cass Rock decides to deploy it, then that vendor has to rewrite their software to accommodate this change, which is a really significant change. And then my office has to redo our business process to accommodate that change for just one instance. So as easy as it seemed, hey, just let us try it once, it's not. It's actually quite difficult.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I appreciate the latitude on that. So – but the cost isn't incurred until there's a vote locally, right? Or if we pass this, then you've got to do it. and if so explain thank you for the question thank you Madam Chair

All right. Well, we appreciate you all for being here. Thank you for the assessment of the bill. And we will go to the next panel. And we have a small panel before we get to the next one. Tiffany Leachman, Michael Valdez, and Allison Morgan. All right. Ms. Morgan, welcome back to the Finance Committee. We'll start with you.

Thank you, Ms. Morgan. I'm Mr. Valdez.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Valdez. I will go online now to Ms. Leachman. Whenever you're ready. Can you say Ms. Leachman? Yep. Go ahead.

The prevailing case on this issue is also quite clear. All right. That is all the time we have for you, Ms. Leachman. If we have any questions, we will ask you. Any questions for this panel of witnesses? All right. Nobody has any questions for you. Thank you very much for your time today. We We really appreciate it. All right, we'll get to the next panel. Craig Campbell, Jesse Zamora, Brett Johnson, Dan Shah, and then we have two people online, Bianca Fisher and Julian Joaquin. All right. Anyone else? So we can start calling up a couple other people if we're not getting everyone. Rachel Carter, is she here in the room? Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Okay. So we'll get started here online. Sorry, in person with you, sir. We'll get started and tell us who you are if you represent anyone other than yourself.

This could also likely bar first-time and lower-income households from accessing more established neighborhoods. Depending upon how much land is used on the lot, the bill will likely penalize single-family homes, which remain the American dream for many families, especially renters. A Colorado Health Foundation poll in 2024 found that more than 90% of renters aspired to own a home, yet 52% don't think that will ever happen. This bill inadvertently favors non-owner-occupied properties over owner-occupied properties. A lower-income household near transit, a major commercial district, or desirable amenities will face a higher land tax that threatens their ability to live and work in their community if they are not maximizing the use of their lot. It might be more appropriate to call this a gentrification tax rather than a land tax. Wealthier homeowners could afford improvements to use more land and reduce their land tax burden, while less affluent homeowners would likely be unable to afford improvements and pay higher taxes. House Bill 11-19 does more than authorize a split mill levy. It increases the associated cost of a home ownership across all product types, accelerating the Colorado housing crisis in the wrong direction. Taxing the value of land is proportionately incentivizes denser rental housing to keep up with land's valuation. The proposal unintentionally favors rental housing over home ownership, leaving hopeful buyers with fewer choices and higher prices. The current property tax system is predictable, whereas allowing different mill levy rates for land improvements will complicate development, especially for more homeowner-occupied units, we strongly urge the committee to vote no on this bill. Thank you for your time, and I can answer any questions.

Bianca Fisher. Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Bianca Fisher, and I am here on behalf of the Downtown Development Authority in Greeley to respectfully oppose House Bill 1119. While the intent of this bill is to encourage development, the reality in Greeley and in many downtowns across Colorado is that it would create unintended consequences that undermine the progress we worked hard to achieve. Downtowns are the heart of our communities. They are where small businesses grow, where community life happens, and where local identity is strongest. The impacts of this bill would be felt statewide. First, the bill weakens tax increment financing, the primary tool DDAs use to fund reinvestment. In downtown Greeley, we've relied on TIF to support projects like the continued revitalization of historic buildings and infrastructure improvements that make downtown a destination. By lowering taxes on improvements, this bill reduces the very increment that makes these investments possible, not just in Greeley, but across Colorado. Next, the bill shifts the tax burden onto small local businesses. In Greeley, many restaurants and retailers operate in older buildings on increasingly valuable land. Under this proposal, they could see higher taxes simply because of location, not because of growth or increased revenue. The same pattern would impact downtown businesses statewide. Furthermore, it creates inequities and pressures on long-term property owners. Historic buildings and properties within larger land footprints are penalized, while some denser developments benefit. At the same time, higher land taxes could force long-time owners to sell, accelerating displacement and changing the character of our downtowns. Finally, as highlighted by the Colorado Assessors Association, this bill adds complexity, reduces transparency, and creates administrative challenges, all within a property tax system that is already stable and well-functioning. In closing, House Bill 1119 risks weakening downtown investment, shifting burden onto small businesses, and disrupting the economic and cultural centers of communities across Colorado.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge no.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm Julian Jackwin. I'm the Town of Erie's Director of Economic Development and Urban Renewal in Boulder and Weld Counties. I'm here on behalf of the Town of Erie, the Erie Town Council, and our adopted legislative agenda, but also on behalf of the Economic Development Council of Colorado, EDCC, and Commercial Real Estate Groups, ICSC, and NAOP. I also serve on the executive board of Downtown Colorado Inc., DCI, and all of these groups are in strong opposition and respectfully ask for a no vote on House Bill 26, 1119 today. As has been said already, this bill creates a split assessment system with different tax rates on land and improvements. It does introduce new administrative burden on local governments, assessors, and treasurers, and requires costly system changes of both the state and local levels. Systems and compliance must be rebuilt with an added cost and no clear benefit. It increases holding costs on land before projects generate revenue and reduces feasibility slowing new development It creates uncertainty in underwriting and long operating costs and capital in our state will likely move to markets with more stable structures and projects will be delayed and or canceled Regarding URA and TIF, as has been said a few times, this bill does weaken tax increment financing with URAs and DDAs. TIF depends on growth and a total assessed value, especially on improvements. This split rate structure reduces the increment generated from vertical development in those areas and lowers TIF revenue available at the project level. The fiscal notice bill does confirm that it will impact TIF revenue and financing agreements, which directly reduces the revenue stream used to fund infrastructure, blight mitigation, and public improvements. It reduces the ability to fund and finance those redevelopment projects in the URAs, shifting more of the cost and the risk to the developers, which also further reduces project feasibility. In closing, local governments rely on these tools to deliver redevelopment and economic growth. The state already has targeted tools at work. This bill just adds complexity, shifts that risk, and reduces outcomes. So on behalf of Erie, our partners, we do strongly oppose Bill 1119 and ask for a no vote.

I'm available for any questions.

Rep to graph. Sorry, I missed your name. Tell me again your name. Mr. Johnson, I'm just curious. Well, one, this seems to me whether it violates the actual nature of contract, but do you see zoning as, if you see zoning as somewhat of an agreement, at least, between the residents, the people who have purchased property, and the state? And also, it sounds like what you said about citizens wanting home ownership doesn't stack up with what seems to be the sponsor's goal of having the citizens of Colorado stacked one on top of the other in high-density housing. Do the citizens of Colorado just not share that dream?

Rob Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is for anyone who can answer it, but maybe Mr. Zamora. I'm thinking specifically about affordable housing developers who might be pursuing land banking and perhaps sitting on a large swath of vacant land for several years in order to make their capital stack. if there are affordable housing developers coming behind, I'm happy to ask this question again. But my reading of the bill is that it is quite possible that their property taxes would be significantly raised by sitting on vacant land while pursuing their capital stack in order to bring more housing in market.

My name is Jay Homestead. I'm here representing Historic Denver, where I work as the Senior Director of Preservation Advocacy. I live at 1449 Quebec Street, Denver, Colorado, in District 6. And so I'm here representing our 13,000 supporters and members of Historic Denver. We oppose House Bill 26-1119 because we believe that it will incentivize the demolition of mid-tier, older historic structures. Many older buildings, residential and commercial, sit on land that is already assessed at higher rates than the improvement. A significantly higher land tax will make it financially untenable to hold or reinvest in these buildings, pushing owners toward demolition for higher density development. Small businesses and independent retailers disproportionately occupy older, smaller buildings and historic commercial corridors precisely because property taxes are lower and more predictable. A higher land tax on these properties will raise occupancy costs, reduce the viability of smaller businesses, and favor well-capitalized tenants in newer buildings. Most older buildings in Denver are brick or stone, materials that are far more durable than construction materials used today. When they are demolished, these high-quality building materials end up in the landfill, which is not a sustainable practice. So we urge you to vote no on this bill.

Let's start with Irene Josie. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Irene Josian, the Larimer County Treasurer and Public Trustee, Legislative Co-Chair and Immediate Past President of the Treasurer's Association. I'm fairly certain you're going to hear a lot of the same concerns from opposition regarding House Bill 26, 11, 19 today. So I'll condense my concerns. Beyond cost, the bill introduces substantial risk, more complex mill levy certification and assessments, higher likelihood of calculation errors, increased taxpayer confusion from more complicated tax statements. That's just the tip of the iceberg. House Bill 2611-19 is a complete overhaul of one of the most complex processes counties perform. It will be expensive, it will take years to implement, and it cannot be done without significant coordination, communication, and resources that simply do not exist today. We are not in our roles to create more confusion or disruption to a complex system that already works. We are here to do better for our communities, and this bill is not better.

members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to speak today i am chuck brorman the el paso county treasurer and member of the county treasurers association i'm here to share my concerns about the impact that house bill 2611 would have on first-time home buyers mobile home residents and colorados living on the lower runs of the economic ladder the materials provided by the assessor associate association note that this structure creates a bias towards non-owner occupied housing and away from single family homes which are our primary path to home home ownership for working families and one of the greatest sorts of wealth creations ever known to man mobile home residents would be hit even harder mobile home parks sit on large parcel of land and the higher land-based taxes would be passed directly to the residents through increased lot rents. This would undermine recent efforts to protect manufactured home communities and keep them affordable. Many of these residents are seniors, immigrants, low-income families who simply cannot afford and absorb additional housing costs. This bill would create major operational and administrative challenges for the offices that must implement it. Colorado property tax systems are not built to apply different mill levy rates to land and improvements, meaning counties would be faced with costly software overheads, vendor changes, and staff-free training, none of which are funded. It also creates a far more complex tax structure. Treasurers would have to build, collect, reconcile, and distribute taxes at two different rates on the same parcel, increasing errors, slowing audits, and confusing taxpayers. Several major property taxes classifications are excluded, forcing counties to run parallel systems that are inefficient and difficult to manage. Taxpayers won't see more clarity. They'll see more confusion, and local government will bear the cost of upgrades and ongoing administrative challenges. And it's for this and many other

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present to you today My name is Heather Longino and I the application support specialist for the Larimer County Treasurer and Public Trustees Office I am speaking to you today to oppose House Bill 1119 and I like to share with you the following reasons You heard that the locations most cited in support of a split mill levy in Pennsylvania have a different system of property valuation where all real estate is assessed in the same way. We accomplish those goals of the split mill levy through the property types and assessment rates that we have here in Colorado. For example, in our current tax year, unimproved vacant land is assessed at 27 percent, and improved residential property has a local government assessed rate of 6.25 percent. So under this system, a vacant land valued at $100,000 has an assessed value of $27,000. That same lot with a $200,000 home on it for a total value of $300,000 would have an assessed value of $18,750. The mill levies applied to both would be the same, but due to the difference in assessed values, the total tax on the home would be lower. My second point in opposition is that we work with the people of Colorado. By introducing more complexity to our property tax system, we make that system less accessible to the populations we serve. This year, we removed the assessed values from our statements, and that meant numerous phone calls because the taxpayers couldn't do the math, and that was only for one assessment change. The split mill levy could double the number of mill levies in play, and each improved property would have two values and two assessment rates, which still wouldn't be shown on the statements. How would the taxpayer know what numbers to use? I've said this jokingly to my colleagues, but in all seriousness, you shouldn't need a textbook to figure out your tax statement. I asked the committee to vote no on 1119, and I

Hello, Chair and members of the committee. Good afternoon. My name is Leslie Oliver. I'm the Vice President of External Affairs for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. On behalf of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado Competitive Council, we oppose House Bill 26-11-19 because it would make Colorado a more expensive, less predictable, and less competitive place to do business. At its core, this bill introduces fundamental uncertainty into Colorado's property tax system by allowing different tax rates for land and improvements. For the business community, predictability matters. Long-term decisions about investment, hiring, and expansion rely on stable and transparent tax structures. This bill moves us in the opposite direction by injecting subjectivity and volatility into property taxation. This concern is especially significant given Colorado's current competitive position. The Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation's Towards a More Competitive Colorado Report shows Colorado ranks 32nd nationally in overall tax climate and 37th in cost of living, two pressure points already felt by employers and families. From an economic competitive standpoint, this policy raises red flags. Investors and employers compare markets regionally and nationally. Increasing the cost of land for land-intensive businesses like retail centers, restaurants with parking, auto services, and logistics facilities just raises the holding costs and makes investment less likely. Those increased fees do not stay on paper. They're passed on through to consumers in the form of higher prices, higher rents, and fewer choices, worsening affordability at a time when Coloradans already struggle with high housing and living costs. For these reasons, the Denver Metro Chamber respectfully urges a no vote on this bill.

We go next to Mr Paffinger Let see if I got that right You close Thank you Madam Chair and Committee My name is Mark Faffinger I serve as the Chief Information Officer for Larimer County I here to provide a neutral technical perspective on implementation considerations for a system change like this. The structure proposed in this bill introduces multiple or split mill levies, which from a technical standpoint represents a very significant change to our underlying computer system design. The change would affect really several very core areas of our tax process. Our data model, which currently tracks at an account or jurisdiction level, is not able to do that across multiple mill levy layers, and that requires complete redesign. Our calculation logic, each taxing authority would require new methods for applying levies and exemptions. Our exemption process, such as senior veteran exemptions, would need to be recalculated with a more complex framework. Another area is tax rule maintenance and corrections. Adjustments and corrections, including retroactive changes to previous years, would require much more complex recalculations as you need to go back by year and look at ways we used to do things. In addition, there's significant impacts of tax statements, billing formats, reporting within the system, testing and validation processes. Laramie County would likely evaluate two primary approaches to implement a law like this. would be modifying our existing system, which would require substantial redevelopment of our complex platform, or implementing a brand new software that could implement or support a structure natively like this. Based on our understanding, a timeline of 18 to 36 months at a cost of $1 to $3 million would be required across our assessor and treasurer system to implement a change like this. Enclosing the proposed change structure introduces meaningful technical and operational considerations for county systems, including system design changes,

Hello, Madam Chair. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns. My name is Carrie Cooey, Garfield County Treasurer and President of the Colorado County Treasurer and Public Trustee Association. I am asking for a no vote on HB 26 1119. Last year and earlier this year, the assessors and treasurers experienced an unusually challenging year implementing the school and non-school rate passed last year. We experienced difficulties with software, and as a result, statutory deadlines became difficult, if not impossible to meet. The Software companies could not provide a fix in an efficient manner because of the complexity of the way in which the bifurcated rate worked. In addition to that, when the fix was finally provided, the printing companies were unable to push that volume through, and the counties ended up missing their statutory deadlines for mailing the tax statement. Because the software companies have to deal with this immediately upon passage, we believe the cost will be more for the software, incrementally so, even if our communities do not opt in. We believe that this bill will cause a similar issue, if not compounded, because of the further difference and increased complication the formula would provide. Eventually, we are likely to lose software providers because they can't keep up or vastly increasing our fees for software, which we've already heard from multiple vendors. Because I try to do the best thing for my constituents within statute I believe this will hurt those who can afford to develop the most I am thinking of the retirees who are already stretched to the maximum on their budgets who are not improving their property Whole neighborhoods may lack the necessary tools to do the development that this bill is designed to promote. My constituents will not be able to understand the formula, which makes customer service to them very difficult and increases the phone calls of frustrated taxpayers to my office. Because of these reasons, I respectfully

I appreciate the committee allowing that. And so I run three business improvement districts in Denver, West Colfax bid, Bluebird bid, and federal bid. And what I'm seeing in this bill is, I think, a well-intended effort to try to encourage development. I can see that. And density. And those are maybe well-intended goals. But I think the challenge here in Denver is there are two issues. One is that this is not the way. That is, unfortunately, we're far, far, far, far cry from that object in Denver, much less smaller towns, where there are so many of these properties and commercial areas are on bigger lots and are smaller profile buildings, smaller footprints. and would be adversely and would realize higher taxes. And that is especially the case for more independently run and owned businesses on properties that may be owned by really businesses that are just struggling, local loan business. The kind of businesses, though, that give a business district character and make it appealing to the people who really provide the character of the district. um in the case and what what i'm concerned about here is really what is a general concern in colfax and that is that um on many of those properties and i could give you an example or two really there isn't enough land to do a redevelopment project and even if you did see redevelopment what you would see is that you would have.

Yes, I do see that.

Okay. All right, well, let's get started in person. Ma'am, won't you please tell us who you are? You have two minutes. Turn the microphone on by the little red light. There you go.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Tarragowski. Tarragowski. Thank you. Sir. That's the button.

Well said. All right. Let's go online. Ed Mate.

Appreciate it very much. Thank you for your time today. Thank you. We're going to go to Mr. Howell. Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of

thank you very much thank you very much we're going to go to next with ms menton

Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Minton and, uh,

Welcome back to finance.

We sure can.

Thank you, Ms. Rush. We appreciate your time today. We really do. Any questions for this panel? All right. I don't see any questions. Thank you. You're still in time for your happy hour. All right. We will get now to the folks who are in favor of the bill. But just before we do, is there anyone else in the room who has not testified on the bill in opposition who would like to come forward? All right. I don't see any more. Okay, so we're going to go to the folks who are in favor of the bill. Robert Greer, who should be here in person. And then online, we have Kevin Matthews, Luke Teeter, and Lars Doucette. Let's see how well I did with the pronunciation. All right, since you sat over in that seat, you get to go first.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Matthews. Mr. Greer.

We'll next go to Mr. Doucette.

Are you ready?

It's a little low.

Yeah, a little bit better.

That's better.

How's that?

That's great.

Yeah. So, um, should I just begin? Go for it.

You got it. Thank you, Mr. Desette. Mr. Titor.

All right. Thank you very much. I'm going to bring up Keith Erfmeyer for questions only from DOLA, just so that way we can just get you in this panel as well. So Rep Camacho has a question.

Sure, yeah. Oh, thank you. I'm sorry. My mic's still on, right? So there's kind of subsets within that group. So you can have people who have few improvements on large lots, either in areas of high land values or low land values. Typically, people who are lower income, they tend to have those in places that have lower land values. and people who have them high land value places they have a lot of equity that they can typically draw from and that's also a much smaller proportion of people who are lower income homeowners so I would break out that element to really show who has what who are the people most at risk of displacement are the people with less equity and yeah I think it's really important to make that distinction

I think it's really important to examine status quo bias because the status quo absolutely picks winners and losers. It says that people who develop housing are losers. We will penalize them. It says that people who own large service parking lots or undeveloped areas in high land value areas like downtowns and are essentially speculating on the value of that land, we want to reward them. That's what the current system does, and I think that that is inappropriate. I think you're right that you can't really get away from normative ideas within taxation systems. So it is a value judgment. I think it's a value judgment whether you say yes or no.

Oh, I apologize. To add on to what Rob was saying, I do agree that there will be winners and losers of this policy. The LVT shift analysis that we've seen, I'm looking at a map right now. It's on my phone. It's kind of terrible for you guys to look at it. But there is a lot of blue, which means that taxes will go down. There are some red areas as well. The biggest red area that stands out to me right now is the Denver country. club. That will see a tax increase. I'm not worried about tax increases on golf courses. We do not have a golf course crisis. We have a housing crisis. There's also a large red area in the downtown area of Denver, which is set to be redeveloped in coming years, but is not yet. That will see a large increase in value. It is also owned, that property is owned by one of the wealthiest people in the country. So again, I'm not particularly concerned about that set of winners and losers. I'm more concerned about people who are struggling to afford the increased value of their homes, especially in gender-fying communities, which the analysis that we have seen will help tremendously.

Yeah, just to jump in on this, I think that the net effect of this is just we're shifting the burden of property taxes from an equal balance of land and improvements, shifting it more onto land. So, you know, one way we can think about like how that affects people distributionally is, you know, where is the land value in the city? And like, you know, if you look at the map of Denver on like where land values are highest, it's it's, you know, the places you'd expect. It's Cherry Creek, Wash Park, it's downtown. And, you know, if you think about the progressivity of this, like those are also areas where we just don't have a lot of low income people because the prices and costs are already so high there. So I think that's part of why we end up seeing this as a very progressive policy shift overall.

Yeah, just real quick. It's probably best to think of this as a location, location, location value tax more than a land tax. People hear land and they think land area, right? But if you have a big lot in the middle of nowhere that's worth zero cents an acre, you know, your taxes are not going to go up much if you have more value of improvement on top of it. you could have a tiny lot in the middle of downtown that's worth quite a lot and your taxes might go up if you have nothing on it right in denver colorado you have 3.5 billion dollars sitting under parking lots you know and those are the single largest class of losers if we're talking about winners and losers in our shifts and i did all of these shifts using only the assessor's data um one of the largest categories of winners in uh which model was it it was the um fort collins model was mobile homes, not the mobile home landlord's land, but the mobile homes themselves, which are individually owned by the poorest tenants in your communities, were the single largest class of winners on a median tax savings basis. So it's really best to think of it in terms of a location, location, location value tax more than just a pure acreage flat tax or anything like

Hello, friends, who I'm usually very aligned with. Several questions here. The first question is the same question I asked to another panel, which is we in Colorado have not yet fully exempted affordable nonprofit housing developers from having to pay property taxes on vacant land that they are land banking, which is a really crucial tool. That bill is going to cost money. I running it this year and I not frankly very optimistic it going to make it out So I have deep concerns about actually putting a higher tax burden on affordable housing developers who are land banking And then the second thing is that I know that as a city councilor, when we were purchasing land that was going to be earmarked for parks and open space or was zoned for parks and open space, that is a much lower level of usage and the land value, and that was just land, the land value was significantly, like at least 50% of what the value of that land would be if you could actually develop it. And so I think I have a concern if we are really asking assessors to start valuing land in a way that is data-driven and intentional. I think my concern is that we may provide a perverse disincentive for doing the things that I know that most of you up there really deeply believe in, which is things like upzoning, getting rid of single family zoning, because now all of a sudden the highest and best use of a property is potentially much more significantly increased and therefore is going to be worth more than a property, than a piece of land where you have much more limited use. And I think I just have concerns with, like, I want to flesh these things out before we actually start putting these policies on.

Oh, okay. Good. Glad you were keeping track.

Thank you. Well, you know, I think the legislature really did itself a favor a couple weeks ago when to pass the HOME Act, which granted nonprofits essentially a higher zoning permission than private developers. So there's certainly a gradient there. As to, I mean, by the way, when is testimony on your exemption for a long time ago? I should have been monitoring that one. one benefit that we think will result from if localities choose to enact this kind of taxation is because it disincentivizes land speculation by private developers and the ongoing taxes of that will get essentially capitalized in the cost of it. It will make many parcels more accessible to non-profits trying to buy up land. But there are certainly complementarities between this and your bill, absolutely.

Okay.

So a couple things. So to your first point regarding, like, nonprofits or land banking, when we were – we've talked to the Neighborhood Development Collaborative who does some of this, and this is one of their concerns as well. And I think we are very open to an amendment for nonprofits that are land banking for this specific purpose. I think that would be perfectly reasonable. To your second question, I want to try to answer it. Honestly, Luke or Lars might be better. But Lars kind of pointed out that this is very location dependent. and so when you're talking about upzoning and how it affects it, the answer is, well, it depends. It depends on the community that it is in. In some cases, it will actually allow for upzoning depending on you know like in central Denver where we see very high land values we see a lot of land that is very very valuable I live on one of those lots But you really are not allowed to build anything And it's, I mean, as a homeowner, it's great for me. I've seen my own wealth increase, but I'm not actually contributing anything by owning that land. And other communities are going to have to examine whether it's worth it. But in a case where it could be helpful, you know, we've been talking about the new Denver Bronco Stadium. And there was an article a few months ago talking about that immediately after the city made it an announcement about the stadium move, you were seeing a bunch of land speculators who were buying up property around the new stadium site, knowing that new zoning was coming. And this has happened a lot in Denver over the last 10, 15 years, where a speculator will buy a piece of land knowing it is going to increase in value. And they are simply sitting on it to turn around and make a profit. They are not actually contributing anything to the housing crisis. This particular split rate tax wouldn't necessarily stop that, but it would disincentivize it. It would make them pay a little bit more into the system as opposed to people who are actually, you know, billing the housing we need.

Yeah, if I may try to answer your second question. Sorry, I didn't get that in my first response. yeah I mean we do think that you know in a similar way to like citywide up zoning having different effects we do think that you know development would tend to happen in the highest land value areas because that's where developers get the most return so that's the other kind of element of like you know how do you stop gentrification it's by allowing housing supply to go into areas with high land values so that you know people who might be live in southwest West Denver or Lake wouldn't have, you know, very high ratios of, like, land area to developed area. But the land is just not as valuable in those places as it is in Cherry Creek or, you know, these places in central Denver that have a lot of amenities, a lot of the amenity value that's driving the land value. And so our general stance as B&Bs has been that we think that blanket upstonings would tend to increase development in certain areas, but also have an effect of decreasing property taxes along the margins of places. So I think it's worth digging into the economics of that. And what we're asking really is that you give assessors the ability to say, hey, we have this split rate tax option. Can we have some economists look at how this would fare in our specific municipality? That's what we're asking for today.

Mr. Greer. Yeah, thank you. I'll clear from my notes here because there's some cases. My understanding is that most of the constitutional concerns are based on the uniformity clause that came in through Tabor. And I think there have been some misinterpretations of that I agree I believe there been some analysis by Attorney General Office and Office of Legislative Legal Services who concluded that this building exemption bill would be constitutional in the uniformity clause. The basic gist of it is that the Colorado Supreme Court pretty clearly stated in the case Jensen v. City in County of Denver that, I'm going to quote here, uniformity of taxation is required within a class, not between or among different classes. So allowing cities to treat the buildings class differently from the land class, we believe would be allowed. I share the legal assessment of those entities I mentioned earlier.

Yes, because mobile home parks, and I feel kind of passionately about this at the Center for Land Economics because we've written an article about this and my co-founder grew up in a mobile home park and can testify to the experience of growing up in that environment, that there are two kinds of real estate in a mobile home park. There is the mobile home park land itself, which is typically owned by a landlord. And there are the mobile homes themselves, which are physical structures with wheels, sometimes much less mobile than advertised. Something that, frankly, the mobile home park landlords take advantage of. And we actually had kind of both cases at once. the tax on the mobile home park would go up and the tax on the mobile home itself would go down. So the mobile home park was one of the losers. It was a fairly modest change, about a 7% shift, but the mobile homes themselves was a negative 13% shift. And I believe this was in the Fort Collins model. And so I think the assessor is operating on the assumption that all taxes on land will be 100% passed through to the tenant. Either that or they're just really, really concerned about mobile home park landlords. But the thing is, the empirical research, and I've studied this and written many articles on it, and I can cite others for you, such as Gupta et al., have found that property taxes in general are often not passed on to tenants if the elasticity of the market, basically if the tax change is not gonna have a huge effect on the supply. So if you're in a really supply constrained area, the property tax generally doesn't get passed on and the supply of land is fixed. And so both theoretically and empirically, we really don't see much pass through of land value taxes in specific. I mean, and the landlords will threaten, we'll raise the taxes, we'll raise the taxes. Well, why don't you raise them right now? Because you can only charge what the market will bear. And so basically the mobile homes, the structures themselves, they see a savings. The mobile home parks, their taxes go up. But really that's just more competition for the landlords to deal with and provide better services. And perhaps the SSRI have a disagreement on the pass-through rate, but I think the literatures on my side on that one. And that's the nature of the disagreement. And you can make your own conclusions based on that testimony. But does that kind of pull apart the nature of my so-called contradiction of the other testimony? I want to make sure that I've fully addressed the question.

Thanks, Madam Chair. It does, but it actually opens up another problem. Members of this committee sat through hours of testimony about mobile homes, about allowing mobile homes the ability to purchase the land on which they sit, which I was a big supporter of because, again, mobile homes have become that bridge option for many. Under your testimony, this would increase – this would work counterproductive to what this committee has already attempted to do, is reduce that land cost for mobile homes because it would increase it and make it more difficult for them to purchase land underneath their home. Help me square that one.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Very good. All right.

Agree to disagree.

Okay. We're just going to get a couple more questions. Rep to Greg. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Chair, whatever. On the home parks, you're talking about reducing – you're talking about reducing – you're talking about that it's okay to just increase the tax on the property owners, which in my mind is also going to encourage them to sell and then we know from this and well what's clearly a um design to uh build high density houses they're going to be the only way to capitalize on that is to go to a high density framework which is going to negate the the mobile home parks. So you're looking at encouraging mobile home parks, the land owners, to sell the land out from underneath the structure owners by making it less profitable and then justifying that by saying that they can pass through that the market won support the pass So I agree with Rep Camacho I don know if I want to go that far but let the record reflect I think a caveat at that in time that this is, I don't see how this is good for mobile home park owners. And then I guess the The other question that I have is when we're looking at the rate of housing development, and I do understand that this favors the YIMBY developers because they can capitalize on current infrastructure to the point of overload and collapse without any ramifications. But we've been building at a rate that's higher than the population growth. And now we have record vacancies at Colorado Springs, Denver. We have a population growth that does not support even sustainability. It's only a fraction of that's just from the demographers. So other than projecting that a large fertility boom is going to be dropping in here, we have a lot of vacancies. And so I'm at a loss of how we have a housing crisis when we have vacancies, when we have buildings downtown that are going for a tenth of their price previously. And so there's questions in there somewhere. I just see this as a whole harm overall. Anyone see a question in there? Who wants to answer? Mr. Greer, you have to if you don't want to.

All right. Mr. Matthews.

And I'm going to remind the committee we are getting close to happy hour times And we are way over on our time. I just want to ask one more question it was said by the Why one of the assessors that in order to do this program They going to have to assume that somebody at some point will ask to do this so they have to set up the system ahead of time Would you be open to a compromise where if there was a municipality that wanted to opt in, that they would petition the county to say, hey, county, we'd like to do this, and then get the county to want to opt in individually? instead of just having all of the counties do it all at the same time. That way it could be a little bit more subject to, you know, the county having the ability to get the resources to do it. Would that be something that you'd be open to as a compromise, Mr. Greer?

Okay. All right. That will be all the questions we have for this panel. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else in the room who would like to testify on House Bill 1119? Seeing no more people, the testimony phase is closed. Mr. Chair, come on up here and tell us if you have any amendments, which I think you do. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

Seconded by Rep. Gonzalez. Go ahead, Mr. Chair. Okay, so, committee, we heard from county assessors that they need time to update their systems. If one of their local governments opts into this, this amendment would create a mandatory two-year lag time between when a local government opts in and when the split rate would be implemented. It also requires coordination between the assessor, treasurer, and state property tax administrator when a local government opts in. I would note, Madam Vice Chair, your concern and your idea of a compromise is good, and I would like to continue working on that with you. Perhaps that's something we can bring on the floor, but I ask for now for an aye vote on L-001. Is there any discussion on Amendment L-001? Is there any objection to Amendment L-001? All right, so no objection. Amendment L-001 is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Seconded by Rep. Gonzalez. Okay, so L002, you know, we heard from folks in Larimer County and elsewhere that if a local government has a boundary that intersects with a TIF financing area, it could in some way, shape, or form negatively affect the money that the property tax increment from the project is received. So we offer this amendment to make it clear that the bill doesn't apply to an urban rural authority or downtown development authority where they have TIFs. I ask for an aye vote. All right. Any questions or comments on L002? Is there any objection to Amendment L002? All right. Seeing no objection, Amendment L002 is adopted. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

Seconded by Rep. Gonzalez. Go ahead. Thank you Madam Vice Chair So committee we heard from like I said in my opening statement we heard from a member of this committee and several county assessors that there are differences in how county assessors currently value land. I think you heard that teased out in the witness testimony, that right now some assessors are valuing the total property and then assigning a certain percentage of that overall value to the land. Some are looking at similar vacant land that has recently sold, and at least one assessor told us that they value land for the first time and then sort of have it on a set it and forget it policy where they just sort of do step rate increases every year. Because of these inconsistencies, we think it would be helpful if the annual property tax audit, which again, ledge council contracts out to a private firm, if that audit looked into how accurately and similarly counties are assessing land values. Right now the contract does this for overall property values but not for the specific land value amount. So what this amendment does is it adds the land value to the scope of future property tax audits. I ask for an aye vote. All right. Is there any discussion on Amendment L003? Any objection to Amendment L003? Seeing no objection, Amendment L003 is adopted. Mr. Chair, any more? No, Madam Vice Chair. Committee, any amendments? All right. See no amendments. Amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Mr. Chairman. All right.

All right. Any closing thoughts from the committee? We're up to Graf. Thank you, Chair. It's one of those ones that I am for local control, but I'm ultimately for local control at the individual level, that you have individuals that have purchased property. And whether you consider that zoning to be a contract, it is an agreement that they're going to live one way. The property was purchased with one set of rules in mind. And I think we need to make any changes to that a lot more surgically than this type. And I do understand that this is just something that gives it potentially the option of doing it. But even in the previous and earlier bill that you promoted, that when given the opportunity for this type of housing, the municipalities just resoundingly vote no. and so this is more an ideological, to me it looks more like an ideological that we need to put people in these cracker box type things, get rid of parking lots, they need to ride the buses, they need to live in this certain way and the citizens in the market have just soundly rejected this So I think again the idea of going back and taking the state agreement and people purchase properties, people have established lives based on one set of rules, and then being able to just say, even if it's to the municipalities and just go and say, hey, by the way, you could just change the rules midstream, I think is a dangerous precedent on a lot of levels. Now, we could cut taxes. I know that's never looked at in this body. We could cut regulation and we could cut a lot of expenses to make housing a lot more affordable. But I don't see government meddling in here as a legitimate way, so I'll be a no. All right. Rep Camacho. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Rep. Marshall.

the unintended consequences all over the place are massive. So I don't think we can get through it until we convinced enough people that whatever short pain there may be and it would be immense that the long benefits may outweigh it but we certainly not there yet Our entire land use system is built on still three 400 feudal systems at its core so we've been constantly trying to work around that, so trying to tear it apart at the roots. It's something a lot of people would like to do, but in reality it's just way, way too tough when we have so many vested interests that have legitimate concerns and legitimate reasons to oppose it. So for those reasons today, I'm really going to have to be a no. Anyone else? Rep Stewart.

Rep. Garcia.

Madam Chair yes and that fails on a vote of 3 to 8 thank you committee would someone like to make a motion

All right. That motion passes. And that will be the final conclusion of the Finance Committee for today, and it will be adjourned. Thank you.