Senate Transportation & Energy [Apr 27, 2026]

Senators Bazley.

Here.

Good afternoon.

Mullica.

Sullivan.

And Madam Chair.

We will be hearing Senate Bill 171 first, which I'm sponsoring, so I will turn it over to my vice chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill, you actually may remember hearing about the original bill disposal of pre-production plastic materials way, way, way these many weeks ago. When the bill's been signed and we realized someone caught that there was something in the bill that could be misinterpreted to indicate that all the plastic materials that we were preventing from being discharged into the environment would have to be taken to a hazardous waste site And that was not true. We didn't want to have people think that and have to worry about where they disposed of them. So we just did a teeny tiny fix to clarify that. And that's what this bill is. Very, very narrow bill just to clarify that they do not have to go to a hazardous waste site. So I think I have a few people here to talk about it and hope that's an easy one for you all to approve.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is David Snapp and I manage the Solid Waste Materials Management Program in the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment We regulate solid waste disposal sites and numerous other types of waste management and recycling facilities in Colorado I here today in strong support of SB 26171 We want to thank Senators Cutter and Wallace for sponsoring this bill. SB 26, as noted earlier, SB 2616 prohibits the disposal of pre-production plastic at locations that are not permitted to accept hazardous waste. waste. The bill identifies pre-production plastics to include plastic generated from facilities that use virgin plastic or recycled plastic to create plastic products or at a facility that recycles plastic. Pre-production plastic materials are not listed as hazardous waste and are not characterized as hazardous waste, yet SB 2616 requires their disposal of hazardous waste landfills. Requiring plastics recyclers and plastic product manufacturers to dispose of their waste generated from the plastics recycling process at hazardous waste landfills will likely place a large financial burden on plastics processors and is inconsistent with Colorado's solid waste regulations. SB 26171 allows these plastic wastes to be sent to a solid waste disposal site, so a of solid waste landfill rather than a hazardous waste site, which is consistent with the current solid waste regulations and current practices for this waste stream. In summary, the department supports SB 26161 because this bill aligns the disposal prohibitions past in SB 2616 with the current solid waste regulations and current practice and will prevent increasing cost to plastics recyclers and plastic product manufacturers. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. Pronouncing it perfectly. And thank you for the opportunity to testify today to both yourself and the representatives of the committee. My name, as you mentioned, Charlotte Dreisen. I'm the Senior Director of Operation Clean Sweep at the Plastics Industry Association. We represent the full plastics value chain, which includes more than 13,000 workers in the state of Colorado. Operation Clean Sweep, or OCS, is the world's largest stewardship program dedicated to preventing loss of plastic resin in operations, representing more than 6,000 companies worldwide. With our shared goal of zero plastic resin loss, we appreciate the improvement that SB26171 makes to SB26016 to clarify that plastic resin can be disposed of in appropriate solid waste facilities. However, there are opportunities that are being overlooked where amendments could foster improved operational practices in a proactive fashion rather than a punitive fashion. and where changes can reduce friction that's being created by SB 26016 between this bill and the Clean Water Act. I'd like to discuss these two areas and start with how this bill directs CDPHE to explicitly contradict the federal framework for EPA's zero water permits established by the Clean Water Act. This existing federal framework creates friction with federal law and introduces complexity and risk that industry in Colorado will have to manage unless amendments are made. Given the significant time, attention, and resources that Colorado has invested in the circular economy, it's important to be aware of the negative impact that this bill will have on the ability for Colorado to attract plastic recyclers unless amendments are made. We've heard directly from plastic recyclers in the state of Colorado already to this effect. Our previous proposed amendments, on the other hand, would include a range of tested strategies that would enable industry to proactively improve resin handling practices, rather than SB 26016 only being reactive and punitive. And the amendments included in SB 26171 being a pretty narrow and minor update though one that we certainly support The ranges of these tested strategies that we would recommend range from conducting fundamental risk assessments at the facility level training employees on plastic resin loss prevention practices, installing equipment, and creating dedicated procedures to prevent plastic resin loss. With a goal of preventing plastic resin loss, it's a little bit confusing to us why proactive strategies to do better and to be even more proactive, didn't seem to fit with that end goal. Under our third-party inspection program, there's also an opportunity to leverage more than 200 independent auditors that can be used to verify that these proactive practices have been successfully implemented. This would pace the cost of demonstrating compliance on industry rather than CDPHE or Colorado taxpayers. Thanks again for the opportunity to testify today. While we appreciate the clarification that SB 171 provides to SB 26016, we urge the committee to consider additional amendments that would improve the proactive nature of the bill, minimize friction with federal frameworks, and incorporate proactive requirements. We would welcome the opportunity to be a resource and

The amendments would be the same that we have in mind for the bill at hand here, as well as the initial bill that was introduced and passed previously.

Ms. Driesen? Given the nature of SB 26171, adjusting SB 26016, while the improvement for 171 is quite narrow and clarifying in nature, the opportunity to consider holistic improvements is one that we didn't want to miss the opportunity to discuss and share the potentially negative impact of not including those amendments in this case here. Thank you.

No.

Yes, and I will just point out, if it's okay, that I think you sussed it out in that last question, but any amendments would be outside of the scope of this particular legislation and would be reflecting back to the original, which has been passed and signed. So with that said, I'll move Senate Bill 26171 directly to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

Senators Bazley.

Patlin.

Exum.

Lindstedt.

Mallika.

Any objections, committee members? Seeing none, Senate Bill 171 will be placed on the consent calendar. We'll take a senatorial 5 while we wait for our next bill sponsors. Thank you. Thank you.

to present SB 172. Who would like to begin? Senator Heinrichson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Over several years since its creation, the Front Range Passenger Rail District, or FRPRD, sometimes just shortened to FRPR, has been meeting with local communities and with other various stakeholders throughout the Front Range to develop the plans for what will hopefully be Front Range passenger rail in the near future. They have received input from where strategically it makes sense for stations to go, from a planning perspective, from a sustainability perspective, from a passenger economic perspective, and from just feedback from the communities up and down the I-25 corridor that the range currently comprises. Based on that, there has been the identification of where those stations should go, what the route should look like, And when it was created, the net was cast wide because those were really uncertainties in the front range passenger rail planning process. Now that it's been honed in on, there are geographic parts of the district that don't make a whole lot of sense anymore. And so Senate Bill 172 narrows the district to what does continue to make a lot of sense from a policy framework based on what has been identified as being the needs of the district, based on what has been identified as the strategic placement of the stops for the proposed front range passenger rail. The bill also creates the optional authority for subdistricting. That's important for a number of reasons, but there is a realization through the stakeholder process that the needs of the communities that will be served by Front Range Passenger Rail vary greatly across different geographic sections. What the ridership would look like and the reasons for the formation of ridership would look potentially different. And so that creates some flexibility for the district as well. And it creates a process by which the district can go ultimately to the ballots to seek approval for the voters to generate the revenue that would be necessary to build out the district and make it so that there can be passengers in seats in the near future. So with that, I'll turn it over to my co-prime. Thank you.

Thank you. And as a senator from Fort Collins which would be at the north end of the passenger rail I would like to thank my co from Pueblo who will be at the south end of the front-page passenger rail, to say, you know, I think folks all along the front range are really excited about this opportunity. You know, when I first heard of front-range passenger rail, It was just a glimmer in somebody's eye. And it was, I believe, maybe 2012, I'm thinking. And I was at a fair up in Fort Collins, and we were talking about, oh, wouldn't it be great if there were a train? And you know what they told me? They said, yeah, well, there is a train planned, and we hope to have something by 2070. And I was like, 2070, that's just like a really long time, even though I was a lot younger at the time. And so for us to be pulling up schedule by a good 40 years plus is a really exciting opportunity. I was invited to a meeting yesterday in Fort Collins, and it was the Green Latinos Toxics Tour, and I thought I was going to be talking about neonicotinoid pesticides and rodenticide and all the fun things. And it turns out it was all about front-range passenger rail. So I was talking about data centers and passenger rail. And I will just tell you the folks in my community are really excited about this opportunity to have this wonderful opportunity to get to Pueblo or Denver or Colorado Springs or wherever it is along the path they want. So with that, my co-prime has already explained the bill really well, so happy to take any questions.

Thank you. I've got quite a few questions. So I guess my first question is, when I look at this and I look at the bill, there's just a number of cities or towns that are just listed off in the bill, but it doesn't tell me really how you got to, that I could see, how you got to having these number of cities or towns listed as part of the district. And so I would like to know kind of where does this list come from? Where are the parameters?

Thank you, Madam Chair. This list comes from recommendations from the Front Range Passenger Rail Commission that used a standard of within a five-mile radius of a Front Range Passenger Rail stop, municipalities that have at least 20% of their population residing within that radius. and that was applied uniformly throughout all of the stops that have been proposed in the final stop proposal list.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So within five miles radius of a stop and then 20% of that municipality's population has to be within five miles, so it's a population of the municipality?

Senator Malka.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sorry I forgot we had permission to dialogue So there is an opt available for metropolitan districts So any metropolitan districts could opt into it as well. But the stops that are planned are entirely planned in cities. and in quite urban areas, as you would expect for a urban corridor rail. So I would have to go back and look at what unincorporated areas there are. I'm sure there are some census-designated places that are not incorporated that probably fall within those five-mile radiuses, but those don't have their own governance. It would be either counties wholly, which doesn't make as much sense because if we think, for example, say, Arapahoe County, I'm not sure if 20% of the county would fall within, but it's possible within that five-mile radius. But then there are parts of Arapahoe County, there are parts of Adams County. If we think out in the Eastern Plains, if we think of places like buyers that would not make sense to be part of it. So these are the communities that are closely tied to the rail stations themselves. And then the other challenge, as we look to divide the district and what would be the communities that would comprise of the district going into it, there is a challenge where ultimately for this to come into effect, it's going to have to go to a ballot. It's going to have to be approved by voters. So unless we define by existing precinct level definitions of boundaries, then we have to incorporate a more inclusive political boundary itself and that is essentially a municipality or a metro district boundaries another challenge with doing it on a more closer precinct level is that precincts change every 10 years after the census and that would make it impossible for there to be consistency of voting across the constituency of the rail district. That's not exactly the same problem if you have an annexation of a city. So for those challenges, going through the political boundaries of a municipality made a lot more sense.

So there's, I think, a couple points to that question, Senator Mullica. at least 20 of a municipality that is included on the list in the bill is within under five miles of the stop locations And then I would have to go back and see what those unincorporated places are I don't know if there are any. There may be like a couple of sensitive designated places. And then no. And the other response I would have to that is if we look at what has been proposed in the past and what I expect to be proposed going forward is that residents who live within the district and are taxpaying members of the district, provided that this goes to the voters and is approved by the voters would have privileges associated with that membership in the form of lower fares. So that would then in the hypothetical that you're proposing also come into effect where the residents that you're speaking of, of an unincorporated area that falls within a a five-mile radius would not have that benefit as well.

There is only a very, very small sliver of Weld County that is within five miles of the Loveland Station. And there is no community that has a 20% or greater composition of that community within Weld County. So for that reason, there would not be a Weld County political subdivision that is wrapped into this.

During the planning process and stakeholder engagement, there was a lot of testimony that there is less strategy behind a potential Castle Rock stop and a less desire of that community for that stop than there were other places who are more enthusiastic along the line. Sterling Ranch, for example, was one where there was much more testimony of desire for that. So that's why Castle Rock is not involved in this.

Because they don't have a 20% population within. Their nearest stop is that Sterling Ranch stop, and there is not 20% of the municipality of Castle Rock within five miles of that.

There is not a stop in Adams County. There is a stop in Westminster.

Correct.

Yeah, so let me clarify real quick. The Westminster stop is actually on the Adams side of the line. So there is the – It's not. It's Jefferson County. I'll refer to the front range passenger rail director on which county line side it is, but that the methodology for drawing the district was decided recommendation from the staff at the Front Range Passenger Rail District, and it was based on a consistent and uniform ability to apply a methodology uniformly in a way that would allow for the district to be able to go to the voters, which is, of course, a necessity of the function of the front range passenger rail districts to be able to move forward. And that methodology was applied uniformly to all stations up and down the line. So it's not as if North Glen was included in with methodology that doesn't apply to others. in fact removing North Glen would create for them an exemption that does not exist for others.

To clarify, they're part of the rail district now. We're not adding North Glen in as if they don't exist. North Glen is in the district now. And the district was designed with a much wider net in mind because we didn't let, you know, forget not even knowing where the proposed stops would be, we didn't even know which line the rail was going to take when the Front Range Passenger Rail District was originally created. There were proposals for it to take a more easterly path than what is actually going into the final proposed plan. That stuff, those communities, of course it doesn't make sense to be included at all. They've been carved out.

Senator Mullica, what I am hearing i'm trying to reconcile because on one hand you're saying that you would like the entire if i understand what you're saying correctly is you would like the entire current composition of the front range passenger road that's not what i said okay that what i heard earlier so you so you understanding of shrinking the district you you you that not the issue the the issue is the inclusion of the communities that are within that shrunk district

Yeah, and I would just say, you know, as we look through the list, Arvada, Edgewater, Centennial, there are multiple other, you know, Englewood, There are multiple other communities in the district that do not have a stop but are well within the vicinity of that stop that are also included. And the same methodology was applied to those communities as was applied to North Glen.

I didn't hear a question there. I think your position is established. Any further questions? Okay, Senator Beasley, go ahead.

Senator Kipp?

Further questions? Senator Malka.

Senator Heinrichson.

Senator Mullica. So the municipalities that are getting brought in through the redrawing of the map, they're brought into the taxing district whether they like it or not, but they don't have a spot on the board. But if a municipality that's not currently on the board asked to get on the board or agrees to get on the board, then they automatically get a spot on the board?

They would not have a preferential treatment over any current municipality that has a seat at the front range passenger rail district.

Senator Heinrichson.

Okay, members, any further questions? Over there? No? seeing none thank you to the sponsors and we'll begin with this testimony okay Okay, we'll go first with, let's see, Ms. Jeannie Rush. And I'm not sure if she remote or, okay. All right. All right. Miss Rush, welcome.

How are you today?

I'm going to give you three minutes to testify. Please introduce yourself, and you can go now.

Isn't this the same place we want to avoid because of the safety and parking and problems and businesses going under and restaurants going away? I don't know that we want venues in something like this to enter the gates of such a declining city. I think we need to continue.

I know.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm enjoying the robust conversation. My name is Sal Pace. I'm the general manager of the Front Range Passenger Rail District. This bill essentially does three things. One, it redraws and reduces the district boundaries to reflect a new route alignment and station locations. The existing district actually has 4.4 million out of 5.8 million Colorado residents in it. When the district was created in 2021, we were not aware of the route alignment. And it was a very robust district. and it makes sense to redraw these lines. Number two, it allows the district to go to the ballot in sub-districts and clarifies governance. And number three, it clarifies legislative council will be the designated, actually, Secretary of State will be the designated election official and legislative council will be helping us print the Tabor notice in the blue book and that will be covered by the district those costs. So I'd love to jump in with some of Senator Mullica's specific questions as to why the alignment is along municipal boundaries. It was determined with negotiations with the county clerks who had concerns about picking arbitrary lines and concerns with multiple ballot styles. And they asked for an opportunity to have a new district boundary that wasn't something as arbitrary as five miles or three miles for a line, but stuck to some sort of existing municipal boundaries. They didn't want to have to be drawing lines through precincts or through even individual property owners' properties. To Senator Mullico's question about Castle Rock, Castle Rock in the entirety of Douglas County is currently in the district. we've worked very extensively with elected officials in Castle Rock and Douglas County to work on a preferred route alignment. We received a letter signed by the county commissioner saying that they'd prefer a stop in Sterling Ranch. Sterling Ranch is actually a really robustly growing community in the south metro area. And so after a lot of planning and research we settled on Sterling Ranch and I hope we can dive in on questions Thank you for your time this afternoon Appreciate your testimony And Commissioner Libby welcome If you ready you can begin your three minutes Thank you. Good afternoon, committee and bill sponsors, Madam Chair. I am a Boulder County Commissioner. I'm also a member of the board of the Front Range Passenger Rail District, and I'm testifying in both of those capacities, as well as on behalf of the Northwest Mayors and Commissioners Coalition. in full support of Senate Bill 172. As you already heard from the bill sponsor and our general manager, the bill better aligns the boundaries of the district with the area that will be served by passenger rail. And as a special taxing district, it's important that those who are paying to support passenger rail be best able to utilize that service. The original boundaries, as you've already heard, were drawn before the northern route was selected and before the stations were identified. Now that we have that route and have identified stations, Senable 172 narrows the boundaries in accordance with those decisions. Addressing Senator Mullica's concerns to some extent, because this is intercity rail and not commuter rail, we expect people to use it who are farther from the stop. If this were commuting for commuting purposes or daily transit purposes, then we would expect closer proximity. But for inner city passenger rail, that kind of service draws people ridership from a much larger area. The other main aspect of the bill, allowing the creation of one or more sub-districts, that facilitates taking a geographically phased approach to implementation, as opposed to phasing the services based on the scale of services. In the event we go that direction, or in the event that polling shows that voters and taxpayers in one or more geographic areas do not support passenger rail, we would not want that to thwart providing service to areas that do support it. So while the Board of Directors has consistently been united in our dedication to fulfill the charge of our enabling legislation, serving the entire span of the district, we may find that voters don't share similar dedication. And so allowing for that segmentation would allow the service to proceed with appropriate changes in the governance structure. Senate Bill 172 as a whole will bring us one step closer to having inner city passenger rail on the front range with its promise of mobility, congestion relief, emissions reduction, and economic development. And I ask for an aye vote, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Are you ready, sir? Yes. Hi, Senator and high committee. Thanks for hearing my words today. I didn't know much about this topic until today. I did some reading. And after listening to Senator Mullica, I was interested in looking a little further in. And what scares me right here, and I know I was in a neutral position, but lines 13 on page 5, to divide the district into one or more sub-districts as prescribed in Section 3211101. And that kind of scares me right there because that talking about the ability to levy taxes So we looking at situations in 1101 to levy collect ad valerum taxes to levy taxes collect revenue and issue coupon bonds and on and on So the question that I would have there in general is, is it appropriate for a appointed board to be able to create another substructure of government? Or should that decision come before boards such as yourself, the elected representatives? That seems like a no taxation without representation situation right there. I don't I don't think that works. And to Senator Molokov's comments as well, it is interesting that a rail line could go through the unincorporated Adams County and go stop to stop. But the unincorporated county might not be able to talk about times of service, noise, complaints, what have you, because they wouldn't have a seat at the table. Because now only the districts would be inclusive of folks that live in the actual district, but not the taxing district, but the specific communities that were mentioned. And the last thing, when we look at the Front Range Passenger Rail Board of Directors right now, there's a lot of folks on there from different states, I-70 Mountain Coalition, Mountain Quarter Coalition, public representatives and what have you, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway itself. So it says you can stay on this commission as long as you're on before July of 2026. But what happens if someone from BNSF loses their job, moves on, retires, what have you? Do they lose their seat at the table forever? And now it's only these districts that can be on the board. So I think there's an issue right there. You know, maybe either talk about a term limit or maybe talk about folks from other entities that are on this board to have a method to to have other people from that same entity to be considered for this board. I think there is an exclusion issue there as well. So, yeah, I think the biggest thing there is the taxation and the creating of new forms of government by unelected. I have a severe problem with that, and I hope you can discuss that. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, that's correct. I'm here to help answer any questions about election administration and how this bill might affect that in the state with the Secretary of State's office. So happy to do that if the panel has any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple questions for Mr. Pace. And I really hope that this conversation and debate doesn't necessarily lead to the thought that we should bring in all of Adams County, which is maybe some of the conversation I just had, back into the district. I think that it's a valid debate and a valid conversation to have without any potential threats or, you know, looking at the expansion. but really looking at what we're trying to do here. And Mr. Pace, I guess I want to start off by saying thank you for the conversations you and I have had because I know that originally there was a conversation about three-mile radius. It brought in pieces of Thornton, and I think that where you got was trying to address that, but I also think that with what you're trying to do is bring in a municipality that is not really within that area or an area that would benefit from it. And so I guess I want to try to understand, and I think you touched on it a little bit, how you got to five miles and 20%. And then within that five miles and 20%, we heard, kind of in other testimony, that we're not including unincorporated areas that are, like, I think, and specifically when I look at Adams County, are relatively close to that stop. And, you know, why we haven't been able to figure out a way to do that and maybe have a maybe more appropriate boundary for this taxing. Mr. Pace.

Senator Mullica.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and Senator Mullica. One of the proposals, and we passed a resolution last week with the Front Range Passenger Rail District Board concerning a local return program to send dollars back specifically to the communities with stations and the ability to utilize those dollars. So dollars that we collect, send them specifically back for the opportunity of construction and operation, operation, but also first mile, last mile connectivity and also transit and connectivity purposes. Something that we started to ruminate about is a similar type of program for the communities that are in the district, but not with stations and specifically how to provide connectivity for those communities. So I think there's a distinct potential. We have not settled on a policy, and I don't want to project that we are, but I think there's a potential that some of those local return dollars could ultimately be used for connectivity in North Clinton.

Senator Mullica.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Malika. That's absolutely true, you know, and the reason that we work so closely with the Douglas County stakeholders, including the city of Castle Rock, was to ensure that people who are in the district and have stations are people where stations make the most sense. We do not want to force stops onto people. In this case, though, it becomes a little difficult at times when you have a station and there are clear residents benefiting who do not live in that station municipality and trying to capture that in an objective way And I sure that you know North Glen and Adams County better than anyone else here That said, we're trying to stick to an objective criteria and something that is based on numbers and on a little bit of research, actually a lot of research, to try to draw a district that is fair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I got subbed onto this committee, so I hadn't really studied this bill. But I need to find out. So here's the route, they're going through Werfano County, there's a shaded area which says it's in the district. Are they going to be part of the taxing district? Is it going to cost them to run through Werfano County and not get any benefit?

Senator Pelton. Thank you. And so then they won't be taxed now.

Any further questions from the committee? No. Okay. Seeing none, thank you to all the witnesses. Thank you so much for testifying today. And, oh, yes. I know of at least one other witness who came, and I don't know. I was going to call. Okay, great, sorry. Absolutely, that's okay. Are there any witnesses that have not signed up? Okay, please approach. And the sign-up is in the back, right? The sign-up sheet is in the back, so just make sure you add your name to that before you leave. But in the meantime, welcome. Please begin when you're ready. introduce yourself and tell us why you're here. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions? Yes, Senator Pelton.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Pelton. So in terms of the right-of-way, the right-of-way would be within the existing BNSF and UP right-of-way. I believe it's all BNSF south of Pueblo along that line. So we would stay within that right-of-way. In terms of activity, we have to still see what ridership is supported, but there's only so much we'll be able to get on that particular part of the line given the population density. Thank you.

Thank you. First, we would like to offer L-001. L-001 is resolving the problem where the front-range passenger rail was trying to do the right thing by paying the legislative fund back for their work on the blue book. But you know what? That puts us over the TARA fund, and that will make it hard to get through appropriations. So we're not going to pay them back. So that's what this amendment does. We would ask for a yes vote.

Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-001 to Senate Bill 172.

Thank you. We would also like to offer L002, which I believe is we are doing to get labor into a better place. Senator Ball?

That's a proper motion. Any questions for the sponsors on L002? Any objections? to L002.

Bazley. No.

Yes.

Lindstedt. Aye.

Elton R. No.

Mr. Vice Chair. Aye.

that amendment passes seven to two um any other amendments from the sponsors committee any

us about your amendment thank you madam chair members uh it's a simple amendment it just removes

conversation today with that. Been working with the stakeholders to try to figure out

Any questions for Senator Muckler or comments? Yes, Senator Linstead.

Thank you, Senator Lindstedt. Senator Kipp?

Senator Heinrichson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to echo my colleague's request for a no vote. This reminds me of a bill that I had a couple years ago, and I didn't have the votes for that bill on the floor and was trying really hard to get the votes on the bill on the floor. and a colleague and i was a vote away from having the votes and a colleague told me well if you carve out my community from the regulation then i'll be a yes and i rejected it because it is a bad precedent when when we're talking about applicability of laws or we're talking about the borders of a special district to include or exempt political subdivisions of the state absent a policy nexus with that inclusion or exemption The bill that you had before you had a policy definitional goal of 20 of that municipality and within five miles of a station stop. And then was applied uniformly to every single stop. So it applied uniformly to every single municipality touched by that stop. I agree that it would be ideal if some of the unincorporated areas that are closer could be included instead. There are logistical challenges with that, particularly when those unincorporated are also not a metro district, when they're just unincorporated areas, recognized, senseless, designated places. because those boundaries and those property lines can always change. As cities annex other land, those unincorporated areas, parts of them are no longer unincorporated. They are not clearly defined. And we're talking about the boundaries of the city of Pueblo. I can point to Platter's map of exactly what the boundaries are of the city of Pueblo. There's no question of that. And so an election for a special district that includes the municipality of Pueblo is very well defined. You can't do that for an unincorporated area absent. A metro district also has very well defined lines. And so there's that problem. There's the problem of you can tie it to county clerks, drawings of precincts. Those are boundaries. But those change every 10 years at the census, too. And so then you have a fluctuating special district that creates its own challenges. And then when you have properties that are unincorporated and then the property itself becomes subdivided, and that falls along the line of precinct designation, is that in or out? There are challenges to being able to administer an election of a special district with that included. I'm not saying that they're insolvable. It might be – it's challenging to say the least. And so I am not married to the 5 miles and 20 percent rule that is a policy-rooted rule that is proposed in the current version of the bill, a municipality within 5 miles and 20 percent of that municipality. I'm not married to that being definitionally the policy, but I would hope for the sake of principles of good governance that any changes to that follow along a policy nexus that is also uniformly applied. So for those reasons, I would ask for ANOVA on L003.

So, Ms. Forbes, please take the poll. Senators, Baisley.

Catlin.

Exum.

Lindstedt.

Mullica.

Pelton R.

Sullivan.

Mr. Vice Chair.

And Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So we're going to have more discussions on the definition of the boundary piece of this bill. But this bill is a necessary and critical piece in the puzzle that has been front range passenger rail for a decade now. So, again, why we're here broadly is, you know, I can't say it as good as my colleague from Fort Collins, but did you say it was a twinkle in your eye when you first? But when we created the apparatus that is the Front Range Passenger Rail District to begin looking at the viability of this, to begin exploring the alternatives. What is the proper route that should take? What meets proper sustainability principles? What meets the ridership needs? What meets the equity needs? What is the way that this should look like? It was a broader concept. It's what it was. It was a concept, a very broad concept. we've now gotten down to a this is it this is this is the line this is the line that we want to pose to voters and we want those who have investment in this broad community to be able to have their say on it and that didn't include everybody that was in the initial concept And so it adjusts the district accordingly and gives the district the flexibility it needs to determine the timing and administer the election thereof to see this to fruition. and this is a really critical bill uh if those of us in this room are going to uh soon be in those seats uh with with this state of the art improvements to our transportation infrastructure in the front range and I ask for your aye vote on Senate Bill 172 Thank you Senator Heinrichson

Thank you. So this is part of a long-term plan that is intended to benefit the entire state, right? This is part of, like I said, north to south, east to west, and then things coming off of it. It's going to be longer term than just what's going to happen in the next five years or ten years. This is the beginning. This is a good place to start. And we need to have a good path forward. There's a lot of work that has already gone into this. And I think it is a real challenge to move forward if people don't understand what the benefit is to the entire state. So I ask for a guest phone.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And it will not benefit all the state. you go 30 miles east of I-25, from there to the Kansas border, there is part of the state that this will never benefit. So I can see somewhere down the line we may have to help pay for it, but it will never benefit us. There's not enough population to ever make it so. So for that, I will probably support the bill, but I want it clear. It will never help my part of the district.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just not a proper role for government to make lines that go just one spot, one line. We have roads. We should make roads sufficient capacity for everybody to get where they need to go in their automobiles independently. and this is going to be an extremely expensive project. It always is for other states to try it. And it's going to be cost overruns and it'll take a whole lot longer than predicted and just not something we ought to be doing. We should not be pursuing utopia. Utopia is liberty.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the sponsors for the work. I also really want to just genuinely thank Representative Pace for the conversations that we've had and hopefully can continue having. I'm going to be a yes today with the amendment that got on. But I do think that there should be legitimate conversation because I do think that there's been movement within the district already. We heard about Castle Rock. We've heard about other areas. and I think that you know so when we talk about it and how to make this district the best that it can be you know I do think that there is room to continue having those conversations and hopefully there's that space to continue having those conversations. Appreciate the work that you all have put in thus far and like I said I will be a yes today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26-172 to the Appropriations Committee as amended with a favorable recommendation.

The proper motion, Ms. Forbes, if you will pull the committee. Senators, Baisley.

Catlin.

Exum.

Lindstedt.

Mullica.

Elton R.

Sullivan.

Mr. Vice Chair.

And Madam Chair.