Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 101

Doherty.

Frizzell.

Gonzalez.

Judah.

Kip. Kirk. Kirkmeyer.

Lindstedt

Marchman

Pelton B

Rich

Rodriguez

Snyder

Wallace

Zamora Wilson

Let's do this. The morning roll call is 33 present, zero abstinent To excuse, we have a quorum Senator Catlin, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the life of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Good morning, Mr. President. I move the Senate Journal of yesterday, Thursday, April 23rd, be approved as corrected by the Secretary.

Aye.

No.

Senate Services. Correctly printed Senate Bill 178, 179. Correctly engrossed Senate Bill 149. Correctly re-engrossed Senate Bill 117. Correctly revised House Bill 1304. Correctly revised House Bill 1003, 1026, and 1051. Correctly enrolled Senate Bill 40, 59, 60, 85, 109, and 144. Senate Joint Resolution 20. Committee reports. Committee on Appropriations. After consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 23 be amended as follows and is so amended be referred to the committee the whole with favorable recommendation. 27. CONVENTION BE REPRESARED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH A REECOMMENDATION. HOUSE BILL §1053 BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH favorable RECOMMENDATION. HOUSE BILL §1088 BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH A REECOMMENDATION. Louise Buchme RRORS TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH A REBJAM IMAGES IF WEioned DECISION. INDEFINITELY. CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORTS. FIRST REPORT OF THE FIRST CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE BILD 1357. THIS REPORT AMENDS THE RE-REVISED BILL TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES YOUR FIRST CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED ON HOUSE BILD 1357 CONCERNING PHASING OUT TEACHER RECRUITMENT EDUCATION AND PREPARATION PROGRAM AND IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED THE TEACHER RECRUITMENT EDUCATION AND PREPARATION PROGRAM AND IN Revised bill to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Your first conference committee appointed on House Bill 1357 concerning phasing out the teacher recruitment education and preparation program and in connection there with making and reducing an appropriation has met and reports that it has agreed upon the following that the House accede to the Senate amendments made to the bill as the amendments appear in the re-revised bill with the following changes. Respectfully submitted, House Committee Representatives Emily Sirota, Chair, Representative Kyle Brown, Representative Rick Taggart, Senate committee, Senator Judy Amabile, Chair Senator Jeff Bridges, Senator Barbara Kirkmeyer. Message from the House.

The House has postponed indefinitely. Senate Bill 140. The bill is returned herewith.

Majority Leader. Majority Leader Rodriguez.

You move on to the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. You guys have it. We will proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege. Senator Wallace.

Would you like to request?

Granted.

Welcome to the Senate. Further moments of personal privilege. Seeing none, members, before we move into the next phase of resolutions, we want to recognize a special guest. Please help us welcome back to the Senate, Senator Dan Gibbs. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion to proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. All those in favor, say aye.

Oppose, no. The ayes have it. That motion is adopted. We will proceed out of order. Consideration of resolutions. Mr. Schauffler, please be the title of Senate Joint Resolution 24.

Senator Hendrickson.

and whereas motorcycles occupy a significant place in Colorado and American history, having made contributions to numerous military campaigns, law enforcement operations, and the culture of the American West, and whereas over 8 million motorcycles are registered in the United States, with over 200,000 registered in Colorado, and they are used on public roads and highways providing reliable day-to-day transportation and recreational opportunities. And whereas because of their lightweight fuel efficiency and low impact on our highways, motorcycles should be encouraged as a viable transportation alternative. And whereas motorcycles take up less space on our highways and parking areas, thus reducing traffic congestion. And whereas motorcyclists are provided legal access to federally funded highway occupancy vehicle lanes to increase traffic flow while giving motorcyclists a safer environment for travel. And whereas riders and passengers of motorcycles face countless hazards and unforeseen circumstances on the road. And whereas 147 motorcyclists were killed on Colorado roadways last year. And whereas state and national share the road campaigns have been created to remind all motorists to be extra alert in order to increase motorcyclist safety. And whereas studies show that many motorcyclists involved in accidents did not have formal rider training. And whereas many causes of motorcycle crashes may be attributed to lack of experience or failure to appreciate the unique operating characteristics and limitations of motorcycles, as well as the failure of other motorists to share the road with motorcyclists. And whereas the motorcycling community has made an ongoing commitment to increasing awareness of appropriate safety measures and increased participation in rider training programs, and whereas many rider training programs are offered throughout Colorado, both for beginner and experienced riders, to prepare them to operate a motorcycle in the safest possible manner, and whereas rider education, training, and motorcycle awareness are important steps in motorcycle accident prevention, now therefore, be it resolved by the Senate of the 75th General Assembly of the State of Colorado and the House of Representatives concurring herein, that we, the members of the Colorado General Assembly, recognize and designate May 2026 as Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month to promote safety for all motorcycle riders through education and training and to encourage all motorists to share the road in Colorado. Be it further resolved, the copies of this joint resolution be sent to abate of Colorado.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Schaffler. Colleagues, please be seated. It's not May yet, but we certainly wanted to have this in advance, and the motorcycles are already out, which is a good thing. So bring awareness again to motorcycle safety month as it approaches. I have a good friend, David Frank, they're used to be members of the same garage. We had a membership of a garage you could buy in. Everybody would work on your motorcycles in the garage and it was so cool because you met a whole bunch of friends, most of whom had like 50-year-old motorcycles. and it's fun for a bunch of guys to get together and wrench and find out how much we overestimate our mechanical skills. And, you know, there's some camaraderie in that. But he would always show up wearing a shirt that, a T-shirt that said, motorcycles are dangerous. And it was a joke because, you know, he got told that enough at gas station. Like, do you know those things dangerous? Like, yes. Yes, I do know that it's dangerous. and so he just put it on a t-shirt and wore it around when he was, you know, motorcycling or going to work on motorcycles. So why the heck do we do it if it dangerous and it not just for the thrill like roller coasters exist we could all do that And roller coasters, even consumed in mass quantities are probably safer or probably cheaper. I wanted to bring attention to something today as we talk about the resolution this year, which is something that goes hand in hand with safety, which is how? particularly a few months ago there was a interesting study that was conducted by researchers at the university of virginia when they noticed that there was a increase of motorcycle ridership in the post 9 11 veteran community during covid and that stuck following covid and they wanted to know why and this is a research into a small subset of motorcyclists but I think it can be extrapolated. I hypothesize that it can be extrapolated to others in general. What they found was really interesting that there was actually psychological benefits that you could connect from motorcycle riding that were really specific to veterans but others who, you know, have similar experiences. Because riding demands total sensory focus, scanning the road, balancing the bike, anticipating conditions, veterans described in this qualitative study how the immersion reduced intrusive thoughts and flashbacks, aligning with research showing attentional engagement helps interrupt maladaptive rumination cycles in trauma survivors. Veterans reported that time on the bike lowered their anxiety and stabilized mood, and that echoed broader psychological evidence that rhythmic embodied activities, like riding, activate the parasympathetic nervous system, lowering arousal and helping regulate the fight or flight response. Motorcycling provided a renewed sense of identity, whether riding in a group or feeling solidarity with other riders on the road. Social connectivity is consistently linked with lower depression risk and improves long-term health outcomes, making this a powerful and protective factor. Freedom and risk. While risk is real and everybody on a motorcycle knows it, veterans were able to reframe it as a conscious choice that restored a sense of agency. Psychologists describe this as approach coping, facing vulnerability directly, which research ties to resilience and post-traumatic growth. The direct exposure to weather, wind, and environment heightens sensory awareness. Studies in environmental psychology show that time spent outdoors reduces stress, hormones, and improves cognitive functioning, benefits amplified by the attentional demands of riding. GROUP RIDES ECHOED THE TRUST AND COHESION THAT VETERANS HAD EXPERIENCED IN MILITARY SERVICE. FOR TRAUMA SURVIVORS, THIS KIND OF PURE CONNECTION FOSTERS SAFETY, VALIDATION, AND SHARED PURPOSE, ALL VITAL COMPONENTS OF RECOVERY ACCORDING TO SOCIAL SUPPORT RESEARCH. IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED BY PEOPLE I'VE KNOWN IN A FEW WAYS, but the discussion when inevitably it comes to the dangers of riding, the risk of riding is that you can't measure the benefits. And one of the common refrains is something along the lines of There is happiness in writing that can't be measured. And of course, everybody can see the death statistics. Everybody can see when somebody comes disabled. But the stuff that can't be measured is only experienced by the person, the individual who experienced it and not seen by everybody else. So to those who love motorcycling as I do, please ride safe. Please enjoy it. Please stay healthy. I'm really happy to also welcome the members of debate who are here to join us for this resolution on your left side of the chamber. Senator Bright.

And I can tell you that riding a motorcycle for me really translates into positive mental health. It really does. I can tell when I haven't been on my bike that, you know, my mind hasn't been cleared. And so that is an outlet for me. and I get the comment from people like, aren't you afraid of dying on a motorcycle? And I reply with, I'm afraid of not living because I have the experience of riding on a motorcycle, and that to me is truly life. And as we enter May, Motorcycle Awareness Month, I want to take a moment and recognize the start of motorcycle riding season in Colorado. Many of us are already on our bikes, and I ask every Coloradoan to keep our riders in mind. motorcycles hold a special place in our state. We get to see so much of Colorado because of our two-wheel vehicles. For thousands of our neighbors, riding is transportation, recreation. It's a way of life. It's woven into the culture of the American West. Every season, Colorado families lose loved ones on our roads, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, and friends who don't come home. Many of those losses are preventable. So as the weather warms and more bikes return to our highways, I'd ask everyone to do two simple things. If you ride, wear your gear and ride like your life depends on it because it does. And if you drive, check your mirrors twice, look before changing lanes and share the road. The motorcyclist in your blind spot is somebody's family. Let's make this a safe writing season for every Coloradoan, and thank you very much for the time.

Co-sponsors, Senator Henriksen. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask that the current roll call be added as co-sponsors.

Mr. President, the Committee on Health and Human Services has had a hearing on the following appointments and recommends that the appointments be placed in the consent calendar and confirm members of the Colorado Brain Injury Trust Fund Board, effective July 1st, 2025 for terms expiring June 30th, 2028, Rebecca Wassell of Pueblo, Colorado reappointed, Kaitlin Hayes of Englewood Colorado appointed Kathy Hardin of Arvada Colorado appointed Jennifer Medina of Denver Colorado appointed Tobin Wright of Swing Colorado appointed Effective July 1st 2026 for term expiring June 30th 2029 Shanice Maloof of Denver Colorado reappointed Committee on Health and Human Services, after consideration on the merits of the committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 130 be postponed indefinitely. House Bill 1241 be postponed indefinitely. House Bill 1109 be amended as follows. And as so amended, be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with favorable recommendations. Senate Bill 138 be amended as follows, and as so amended, be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with favorable recommendation. Senate Bill 146 be amended as follows, and as so amended, be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation.

The motion to the Senate take up those bills on special orders at the hour of 941 a.m. This requires a two-thirds vote. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed no. The ayes have it, and that motion is adopted. The Senate will take up those bills on special orders at the hour of 941 a.m. Special orders.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed no. The ayes have it and that motion is adopted. The Senate will resolve himself and commit the hope to consider racial special orders. Secondary bills and Senator Roberts will take the chair.

The committee will come to order and the code rule is relaxed for everyone in the chamber. The clerk, please read.

Senator Weissman.

All right, to the finance committee report.

Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of the committee report. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The committee report is adopted. To the Appropriations Report, Senator Weissman.

Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just want to read what part of my canary sheet and our propes that I heard this morning with the business personal property tax. Eliminating inflation adjustment to the business personal property exemption threshold is not projected to impact property tax revenue for the property tax year of 27 and 28. This analysis projects that under current law, the exemption threshold for 27 reassessment cycle will be set at $58,000. Equal to the amount set in the bill, in future years, eliminating inflation adjustment is expected to increase revenue over time for local property tax jurisdictions. members as accounting commissioner one of the things that i heard the most was um this is the most anti-business state there is and part of the reason is because of this business personal property tax one of the things that i did as accounting commissioner is i made sure that we increased the exemption locally that's why i'm not bringing any amendments today because if you're a local government and you can afford to do this you should do this you should make it easier for businesses and you can adjust your bpp in your local jurisdiction but i'm just saying that getting rid of this inflation amount i don't like i don't think it's a good idea i think you should be able to the businesses should be able to count on that larger exemption so um again this is why i voted no on this bill and i'll continue to vote no on this bill because I don't like the fact that we're balancing budgets on the backs of businesses again. Here we go. That's what we're doing. Local governments are going to have to do that unless those local governments choose to raise the exemption. So if I was, again, the county commissioner, that's the thing I would do is say, okay, guys, every year we're going to go ahead and raise inflation on our own so we can go ahead and do that and exempt that. There are some great counties out here that already exempt business personal property tax in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think Douglas County is one of them, if I remember right. So I think that's wonderful that they do that. And I think other local governments should follow suit. I mean, we usually look to what Weld County did in Logan County when we looked at our taxes because they always cut taxes. So, again, if you want businesses in your communities to thrive, you don't want to balance a budget on their backs. because ultimately the citizens are the ones paying this tax That ultimately what going on So again I rise in opposition of Senate Bill 116 and I ask for a no vote

Senator Weissman. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Members, we just discussed a lot that's pretty far from the four corners of the bill as amended, and I'm not going to try to go point for point, but just to note a few things. Concerning the portable senior homestead policy, The way the original bill was written is you could potentially have earned into that having moved after 2020. As a reminder, the bill was passed in 2024. So we're not even necessarily talking about a group of people for whom there was like a deliberate reliance interest who moved because of the law we passed. You might have moved in 22 for other reasons, needing to downsize, go to a single level property, get rid of stairs, whatever, and then you found yourself eligible. Now, I'll grant you that there's an issue here, and wouldn't it be great if our budget hadn't been blown up by actions in D.C. or tariffs or conflict in the Middle East or whatnot? We find ourselves in a tough situation we're trying to manage for. That's all that part of the bill amounts to. Now, concerning business personal property, yes, absolutely, local governments, counties have the ability, backing up on Tabor itself, to make those exceptions and nothing in this bill, whether amended or introduced, disturbs that. That's a choice that local governments can make. The tension here is, you know, when you're in a hole, maybe we should stop digging. I understand the philosophic point that's been made. I also heard very powerfully the idea when we were debating the budget on second reading, you know, we should do more in terms of supporting IDD services. at some point there's a tension between the limited dollars that we have. And, you know, Reagan sort of referred to politics as a time for choosing. We have nothing but tough choices to make around here in a year like this. I do agree that BPP is a bit of a funny tax. The decision to exempt, to increase the exemption amount from the old level, $7,900 to originally $50,000 and then to set an inflation adjustment was actually in a bill that I was a prime sponsor of back in 21, precisely to provide a little bit more relief for small businesses and also paperwork reduction for county officials. BPP, if you look at the distribution, is a lumpy tax. There may have been many small businesses with modest amounts of BPP that weren't actually generating a lot of revenue. The basis of the tax is very much at the high end, So net of the amendments that we made in the 21 bill, about two-thirds of businesses, we're not paying any BPP. And we made a relatively small change in the big scheme to the revenue collection, which we then agreed to backfill, and we even set the inflation adjuster, frankly, back when times were better than they are now. We have numeric thresholds all throughout state law where we haven't put an inflation adjustment on. IT'S A POLICY CHOICE WHETHER THIS LEGISLATURE DOES THAT. WE MADE ONE CHOICE IN ONE SET OF TIMES. JUDGMENT OF THE BILL AS AMENDED IS WE HAVE TO MAKE A DIFFERENT CHOICE NOW WE ARE STILL PROVIDING THE EXEMPTION TO MANY SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WE DID BACKING UP IN 21 Bill has amended as we have to make a different choice now we are still providing the exemption to many small businesses that we did backing up in 21 we still writing warrants annually to local governments for the revenue that they are are forgoing So a lot of valid things to talk about in future years. I think my point here is let's remember the context and back to the very, very small bill that this now is. I'm asking for a yes vote.

Aye.

House Bill 1008 by Representatives Lukens and Taggart and Senators Marchman and Rich concerning measures to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities in the state in connection therewith, expanding the Division of Parks and Wildlife's capacity for outdoor recreation, coordination, planning, and management in making an appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1008 and the Ag and Natural Resources Committee report. To the committee report.

but consideration is also given to the local government's priorities and planning efforts so that they're cooperative and complementary, and I would ask for an aye vote. Any discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the motion before us is the option of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee report.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment to the appropriations report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L-11.

This amendment came up due to a revised fiscal note. When DNR leases vehicles, they do so with money that is not part of the enterprise, so it draws a fiscal. And so what this amendment does, as promised in appropriations this morning to get the bill out, was removes that vehicle lease component. We anticipate that DNR will continue to use the vehicles they have, and if they need new vehicles, they will bring those forward in a budget request in the future. So I would ask for an aye vote on L011.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I'm in support of this amendment, and I just want to say, first of all, thank you to both of the sponsors. We were in appropriations this morning. We understood that there would have been a general fund impact with this amendment. It takes away any general fund impact. The rest of the, when you're looking at appropriations, it's all based out of a cash fund. I was asked this morning if I trust the sponsors, and I said, absolutely, I do. And here they are, fulfilling what they said they would do, which was bring this amendment forward. So I just want to say thank you. And I just want everybody to know, it's nice to know that even though maybe we're on both sides of the aisle or whatever, that we can act in very civil, professional, respectful manners and I appreciate you both for doing this so thank you I ask for an aye vote on L011 Any further discussion on the amendment Seeing none the motion before us is the adoption of Amendment L11 All those in favor say aye Aye Those opposed no The ayes have it

I'm so happy to be on this bill, House Bill 1008, and certainly with my co-prime, Senator Marchman, Outdoor recreation experiences span across Colorado, and not only are they iconic to our state, but they support physical health, mental well-being, environmental stewardship, economic prosperity, and countless other public benefits. In particular, in 2023, outdoor recreation in Colorado contributed $65.8 billion in economic output, $36.5 billion, or 8.5 percent of Colorado's GDP, $11.2 billion in local, state, and federal tax revenue, and 404,000 jobs, or 12.5 percent of the state's labor force. While we all love to see all the residents and tourists enjoying the outdoors, we have to ensure recreational lands are managed in a way that helps keep our public lands, infrastructure, working lands, wildlife, and experiences from being loved to death. I ask for an aye vote on House Bill 1008.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my amazing co-prime from Mesa County. We share a first name, and it's not a very popular first name, so we love to do bills like this. I'm really excited about this bill. It does two things. It just formalizes CPW as the lead state agency charged with implementing Colorado's outdoor strategy, and it solidifies their role in outdoor rec planning, management, and coordination, while ensuring that key local, state, and federal partners and stakeholders are at the table to help shape these discussions and inform CPW's decisions. And with that, I would ask for an aye vote on House Bill 1008.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, we are pleased to present to you House Bill 1009, which is bipartisan legislation that promotes the type of policy I think that we should all endorse. It's grounded in evidence centered on survivors and dedicated to prevention. Research tells us that domestic violence homicides often follow clear warning signs. This bill ensures that when law enforcement is present, a proven method is in place to identify high-risk situations and connect survivors immediately to confidential support. Oh, can I move the bill, please?

Happy Friday, Mr. Chair. I would love to move. House Bill 1009.

Okay.

Well, yes.

Yes.

No.

So when high-risk situations are happening with circumstances, survivors were connecting them immediately to confidential support and to safety planning. So in this bill, starting July of 2027, officers responding to domestic violence calls will carry out evidence-based lethality assessments, including its findings in their reports, and if a case is deemed high risk, refer victims straight away to a community advocate via phone. This approach is not new for my community in particular. Boulder, along with the entirety of the 20th Judicial District, already use this assessment each time they're responding to a call. This legislation is about expanding on already successful response to survivors throughout Colorado receive similarly coordinated evidence-based intervention. A survivor's access to strong support should not be determined by their zip code. What stands out most to me about this bill is its commitment to survivor safety without compromising survivor autonomy. The lethality assessment protocol is voluntary and puts survivors at the center. They may choose whether to complete the screening or speak with an advocate. And most crucially, support is offered during moments of crisis, not delayed when the opportunity may slip away. This model connects survivors directly to confidential community beast domestic violence advocates through a 24-7 hotline or similar service, recognizing that emergencies occur beyond business hours. And since domestic violence, sexual assault, and other gendered and family violence are rooted in power and control, giving victims a choice, a voice, and an advocate to help them in these critical moments will mean a restoration of power for those survivors. Finally, this bill emphasizes critical accountability on the state's part. It tasks the Attorney General partnered with a Colorado-based domestic violence survivor coalition with developing training for peace officers. Statewide reporting will also become mandatory, and the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board will evaluate the law's impact and report findings to us as the legislature. We're not simply setting a standard through this measure. We're measuring its effectiveness and pledging ongoing improvement based on outcomes. Lethality screenings add another layer of safety, a research-driven, evidence-based measure that helps pinpoint high-risk survivors and quickly link them to resources. Thank you again for your consideration members and I look forward to the conversation today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say thank you to my co-prime, the good Senator from Longmont. She stepped into this halfway through this bill. We've been doing this since the summer and she's really, you can tell how passionate she is about this bill and I appreciate her and her help through this. And again, we've seen a rise in domestic violence deaths in the state of Colorado And so we are doing this to help to try to prevent that. So, again, I just ask for an aye vote on House Bill 26-1009.

Senator Prezell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I just needed to get up and speak on behalf of the town of Parker because they have just... First of all, thank you to the bill sponsors. I think this is great legislation. I think it's really important. One thing that the folks that I represent have concerns about is it's not really talking. It's specific to a community-based advocate, which is defined in the bill. But there are many law enforcement agencies and DA offices that actually employ victims advocates and they feel like they are being kind of cut out by this particular by the wording in this bill So I wanted to just step up, one, to thank the bill sponsors. I think this is great in principle, but I want to make sure that I put it out into the universe that law enforcement victims' advocates play an incredibly important role in these situations, and I do believe that they need to be included in this legislation. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for bringing this forward. I hope we all are aware of the tragedy that happened last weekend in Louisiana in which a domestic violence perpetrator murdered seven of his own children, another family member, and the two women that were involved in this. In the state of Louisiana, they do not have an extreme risk protection order like we have here in the state of Colorado. That is beneficial to doing things that something like this is a part of. I'm surprised to not see that listed in any of the assessment here that law enforcement is going to do, because we know when you have the ability to temporarily remove the most lethal means from people who are on the verge of taking violence against others, it's beneficial. And in actuality, over 50% of our children that we worry about each and every day are murdered in their own homes by one of their parents. That is why this type of stuff is so important, and that's why I come to this well on a regular basis to make sure that we do all we can to keep our kids and the rest of our community safe. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members who came to speak on this legislation. First off, we agree with the good senator from Douglas County that law enforcement embedded victims advocates are an important part of this. They are just one part of this, and we also see the need for confidential advocates who are not necessarily tied directly in with law enforcement and can allow survivors, as embedded advocates can too, to work through their process in their own way as they choose to do so. It's not going around them. It's not excluding them from the process. It's just simply directing to one person whose only goal is to be there for the survivor, and then they can, of course, incorporate with other victims advocates in the law enforcement system and with law enforcement themselves or continue to do so after being referred. To the good senator from Centennial, we agree as well, or I agree as well, that there is a place for the conversation here in terms of how this violence is enacted. I will say that there's, once these assessments are done, once folks are connected, they are much more likely to be removed from a harmful situation and to have that done so in a way that feels empowering to them and is their own choice which is the most successful way to intervene in domestic violence situations So regardless of how the violence is happening what we want is victim response that ensures robust safety for them moving forward Thank you Mr. Chair. Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion of the force is the adoption of

Senator Pelton. Thank you Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 261053 in the Finance and the Appropriations

report. So in finance committee we removed a section of the bill and it removed the fiscal note and we are continuing conversations with the Department of Revenue on continuing ways on how we can improve customer service. One of those things is the clerks are just having that conversation moving forward. They asked for both the clerks and the Department of Revenue asked for that part to be stricken from the bill, so we took it out in the Finance Committee.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Appropriations Committee Report.

There is no.

Sorry about that. I forgot. Yes, I was on the Committee. Yes, I forgot about that. We did not accept the J Amendment. So, yes, I move House Bill 261053.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As was mentioned, every few years, the County Clerks Association proposes legislation to provide technical updates, statutory adjustments to the motor vehicle laws. This bill is common sense legislation and reforms at the request of those clerks that really make our registration systems and therefore our roads run.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So also 1053 under current law, an owner of a vehicle that pays specific ownership tax, except interstate commerce carriers, have their license plates retire and reissued new plates when the vehicle ownership is transferred. The bill repeals the requirements for reissuance and allows an owner to request the transfer of the plate. It's going to save us money, folks. The county clerks are, yes, I know. We've actually heard when this bill, when that bill got adopted in Logan County, I mean, when I was a county commissioner there, I heard a lot about complaints about I cannot keep my old license plate. These people had their license plates for decades, and they were just so frustrated that they had to give them up. So that was something that they talked about. This bill also requires the department to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive contingency plan. So when some of the stuff, when the systems go down in some counties, they just can't go to another county. Like Washington County can't go to Logan County to get their plates issued. They have to figure out a way that we can make this happen so people aren't losing that time to renew their plates. So, again, this is a really good bill. I appreciate the county clerk so much and I ask for an aye vote on House Bill 261053.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to take this opportunity to say I love this bill and I encourage all of you to vote for it Thank you All right Feeling the love Further discussion Seeing none the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1053. All those in favor say aye. Aye. As opposed, no. The ayes have it. That bill

Report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had amended the bill in committee basically to allow if there's a lawsuit that the lawsuit be filed in Denver regardless where the business located centralizes these types of cases. That's what we did.

Aye.

Senator Colker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 1088 is a follow-up on a bill that I ran previously, basically helping the Attorney General and the Secretary of State coordinate and fight business identity theft. The solution that we're adding here is to streamline their process, reducing the burden on both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General's office, while improving protections and options for impacted people and businesses. We have a lot of shenanigans going on with people filing numerous, numerous business filings. I think we had one in the thousands, one person was filing. and of course many of those are fraudulent and we're trying to crack down on those to make sure that we're protecting the businesses that are rightfully and and lawfully registered here in

have it and the bill is adopted. Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you Mr. Chair. I move the committee

The committee has met and had a number of bills under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?

madam president i move the report the motion is the adoption of the committee of the whole report

Thank you Madam President. I move for the passage of the bill on third reading of bills final passage consent calendar, which is House Bill 1304

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment L. No, no, no. No. Move the bill first. Move the bill. Okay. I move. I was going to have you do that. I move Senate Bill 149. And ask for permission for a third reading amendment.

Shelby Ross, the bill drafter, said I should run this amendment. And if you guys want to mess with Shelby, you're welcome.

Aye.

I move L56. Thank you. Please tell us about L056.

and some things just weren't exactly right, and this fixes that. I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam President. So, yeah, the bill about competency was slightly incompetent but restorable, so we offered the amendment to restore it. Ask for an aye vote.

Minority Leader Simpson? Thank you, Madam President. I move Senate Bill 149 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote.

Senator Kolker.

Senator Wallace.

Senator Judah.

Senator Pelton R.

And Catlin.

Senator Rich.

Senator Ball.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam President. I move that the Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of general order, second reading of Bill's consent calendar.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move for the passage of the two bills on General Order's Second Reading of Bills Consent Calendar, which is Senate Bill 160 and Senate Bill 169, and there are no committee reports. Is there any discussion on any of the bills on the consent calendar?

Those opposed, no.

Thank you, Matt. Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report. The motion is for the committee to rise and report.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam President. The committee has met and had a number of bills under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?

THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I MOVE THE REPORT.

Thank you, Madam President. I move the Senate resolve itself into the committee to hold for the consideration of general orders, second reading of bills.

Aye. All those opposed, no.

Committee will come to order. Code rules relax. Majority Leader Rodriguez.

Members, the motion is to take up immediately 163. All those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed say no. Ayes have it. We'll proceed to consider SB 163. Mr. Schaffer, please read the title to SB 163.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Schauffler. I move Senate Bill 163 and the Finance Committee report.

In finance, we adopted several amendments that considerably narrow the scope of this bill. This is a bill coming from the Department of Revenue in order to do some cleanup and minor changes to the regulation of table games and allowing people to put themselves on the self-exclusion list for sports betting. As many of you know, I represent the communities in Gilpin County of Blackhawk and Central City where limited gaming happens. In addition, one of the counties where limited gaming happens and then the good senator from Woodland Park represents the other. this is that was the intent of my involvement of this bill we also in the introduced version had some language about horse racing and consolidating the racing commission into the commission on gaming there was a good conversation about that but after that conversation we decided to amend all of the parts of the bill related to horses and horse racing out so that is no longer part of the bill. Hopefully the title will become considerably shorter as well after we adopt the Finance Committee Report. And so with that, I ask for an aye vote on the Committee Report.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So colleagues, yes, as I mentioned, this is a narrowly, a very narrow bill now with the adoption of the committee report. It allows the commissioner or the commission to make some modest changes to certain table games without going through the full process. It increases some of the oversight of illegal gaming in our state and then allows people to add themselves to the self-exclusion list for sports betting, which is good for addiction and responsible gaming. So with that, I ask for an aye vote on Senate Bill 163. Thank you. Further

please say aye. Aye. Any opposed to say no. No. A couple of ayes have it. 163 is adopted.

please say aye. Aye. Any opposed to say no. Ayes have it. We will proceed to consider 1288. Mr. Sharfler, please read the title of House Bill 1288.

To the bill, Senator Wallace.

Any discussion? Senator Wallace.

Senator Robertson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleague from Longmont for her work on this bill and partnership and explanation. The only thing I would add is a thanks to the judicial department who is going to convene this working group of people from all sides of the criminal legal system and the civil legal system to talk about how we can make jury selection more efficient. You all may have personally experienced, and I know you certainly hear from constituents, about jury service and a key part of our society, but it varies widely across the state and even within individual courtrooms within the same courthouse, depending on the judge that is overseeing the case. We want to try to standardize that to give attorneys, defendants, litigants, a more reasonable way that we pick our juries so that they know what they're counting on when they walk into that courtroom and everybody can get a fair and impartial jury for their trial. So this is a really important step, and we look forward to the conversation that will ensue after this bill passes. I ask for an aye vote.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Senate proceed out of order to take up House Bill 1320. Members, the motion is to take up House Bill 1320.

Any opposed, say no. Ayes have it. We will proceed to consider immediately House Bill 1320. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1320.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I MOVE HOUSE BILL 26-1320 AND THE STATE CIVIC MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT.

In the committee, we had a small amendment that was just a technical change that the drafter put together that sort of had been overlooked when they made some amendments in the House. So I urge a yes vote on the committee report.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Senator Benavidez.

Members, this bill is just to clarify the, to help people understand the terminology used in ballot initiatives. So it gives some guidance to the title board in how they look at the language to use more plain language in ballot titles. because sometimes, and I know you all know one of the cities to the west of Denver just had a ballot initiative, and if you voted yes, you were really voting no, that issue comes up, so they really need this plain language to understand that, and it gives some guidance. Things like using common words clearer structure sort of straightforward explanation and some flexibility in how the ballot questions are structured So that basically what the bill does and I would urge a yes vote on the bill

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we heard this in committee, and I do have some concerns with this bill. I believe when you bring in common language, there can be some subjectivity, and so I prefer to have the legal language where it's more specific. And so just so it prevents from any bias or subjectivity, I would urge a no vote on 1320.

Senator Benavides. Thank you to my colleague for that. We did discuss it in committee, and one of the things I neglected to say is research has shown when ballot language is confusing or overly complex, voters are more likely to skip the question altogether. So I think that's important, and providing this guidance isn't a requirement, and we're not asking them to overlook aspects of the initiative. So with that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Senate to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 135.

Aye.

Senate Bill 135 by Senators Bridges and Kip and Representatives Bacon and Lukens. Concerning state public education K-12 funding and in connection therewith, increasing appropriations for state public education K-12 by up to 2% for 10 years using the increased appropriations for district school financing factor funding, allowing the state to retain an amount of state revenue in excess of the limitation on state fiscal year spending equal to the state public K-12 education funding and submitting a ballot question to the registrar's electors of the state.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 135. And there are some... And the Finance Committee Report and the Appropriations Committee Report.

In the Finance Committee, we made some adjustments to how the formula for the positive factor works. Ask for an aye vote.

All those in favor say aye. Aye.

committee, we made some changes as well to some of the details in the bill. I'll ask for an aye vote.

my mother-in-law and my brilliant wife all are or were teachers. Thanksgiving would have been very awkward if I had not spent the last 10 years fighting for public education. And here's what I know. Colorado students are producing incredible results. Our teachers do heroic work every day. And yet Colorado has some of the lowest paid teachers in the country and one of the highest teacher turnover rates in the country That doesn reflect Colorado values And I don believe it reflects what Colorado voters want either This referred measure is a specific targeted ask with built-in accountability. It would allow Colorado to invest billions more in our schools over the next decade if our economy remains strong. Nothing radical, nothing reckless, just the simple idea that when Colorado's economy grows, our investment in education grows with it. And when the economy tightens, this measure tightens with it. There is a built-in break, so funding adjusts with economic conditions, and it assures that when we come back, we make up for what we have lost during that economic downturn. That is responsible budgeting, because the reality is simple. We have a rationing limit tied to inflation plus population, but the cost of educating our kids rises faster than inflation. Educators' salaries rise faster than inflation. Health care costs for those educators rise faster than inflation. The cost of building schools goes up faster than inflation. And our fiscal rules haven't kept up. So even when Colorado's economy grows, our ability to invest in kids falls behind. This measure gives voters the chance to fix that, because every Colorado kid deserves the opportunity to thrive no matter where they come from. For more than a decade, we've had something called the negative factor. Billions of dollars promised to our schools that we didn't deliver. This measure gives us a chance to turn that around with a positive factor. Instead of falling behind, we can lead, because education is economic opportunity. It's the engine of Colorado's workforce. is how a kid from any neighborhood, city, or county in the state gets the chance to earn a good life. In an estate as strong and prosperous as Colorado, our schools should reflect that strength. It is time for Colorado schools to be as strong as the state of Colorado. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, and I would like to thank my good colleague from Greenwood Village for inviting me to join him on this bill. and I just want to let you know one of the things that my good colleague has said is that this is not my bill this is not his bill this is a bill that is being brought to us by the teachers of Colorado the people in Colorado who are looking for better opportunity for our children so Colorado's public schools are chronically underfunded students are in overcrowded classrooms educators are stretched thin and the programs and supports kids need to thrive are simply not there sometimes. We cannot continue asking schools or the educators who hold them together to do more with less. At the same time, Colorado is facing a structural budget crisis that has compounded over decades under outdated fiscal limits. For 30 years, our spending cap has not kept pace with our population, our economy, or our student needs. That has left critical programs and services underfunded for decades, from education and healthcare to infrastructure and public safety. This measure is a responsible first step forward towards addressing both of those challenges. It allows Colorado to use revenue it already collects for K-12 education without raising taxes. And when we invest in smaller class sizes, stronger programs, and retaining high quality teachers, we are investing in our kids, the future of our workforce, our economy, and our communities This is not schools versus everything else K education makes up one of the largest portions of our state budget When we reduce pressure on the general fund freeing up capacity for Medicaid behavioral health infrastructure and public safety relieving pressure on the education side of the budget helps stabilize the entire state budget and helps prevent lawmakers from making the kinds of painful trade-offs we have been forced to make this session and last. We cannot fix 30 years of structural imbalance overnight, but we have to start taking responsible steps now. This measure is one of those steps, and it is a critical one for Colorado schools and students. Most importantly, this decision belongs to the voters. Senate Bill 135 simply gives Coloradans the opportunity to decide whether they want to make this investment in public education. I trust them to make that choice, and I urge my colleagues to give them that opportunity. I ask for your yes vote on Senate Bill 26, 135.

Not yet.

Senator Bridges.

Oh, that's, thank you. I move L010.

Seeing none, the motion of force is the adoption of L010. All those in favor say aye.

There is another amendment at the desk. Thank you. Will the clerk please read L14.

Senator Bridges.

This amendment, sorry, I move L014.

L014 renames the excess state revenue account to the children's account. In this bill, we cannot narrow the purposes of that account. We are working on additional legislation, either in an existing bill or in one that will run here. We still have plenty of time left that will limit the uses of this fund to things like pre-K, additional dollars for K-12, support for kids with developmental disabilities, those sorts of things. So it is an appropriate name for that fund, and we ask for an aye vote on L014.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Children's Fund. I'm assuming that means that the campaign slogan is going to be, we're doing this for the children, if we're going to change it to the Children's Fund. I thought it was already going to be there, but from when all the people that were here in the last couple of weeks, I thought it was going to be for the teachers. But apparently it's going to be for the children. So we're going to change, what this amendment does is it changes the excess state revenues. revenues, the excess state revenues fund, and substitute that to be the children's fund. Clever. That's very clever. Let me just read you what is in the fiscal note, and it's throughout the bill as well. If additional revenue remains after funding the positive factor, another clever terminology there, the remaining revenue may be spent for any purpose. purpose. Now I had Legislative Council Services run a simulation of what kind of revenues we're talking about, which is, looks to me like we are increasing, you know, when you increase the cap, we're increasing taxes. And LCS ran this simulation factor, and basically, over the course of 10 years, just taking the average, if this were carried out over the next 10 years, if this vote prevails, which I don't think it will, but if it does, we would increase the cap and the potential revenues all the way up to $37.5 billion. And of that amount, $9 billion would go to school districts. So saying this is for the children is a bit disingenuous when it may be spent for any purpose. I mean, there's no restrictions either on what that is. There's nothing in this bill or in the ballot title that requires that all of the money that could be raised because of this is going to have to be spent on children. It can be spent anywhere. I mean, granted, they'll probably be spent on children, but it can be spent anywhere. Yes, it could actually go to roads. I know that's the good senator from Greenwood Village, favorite place to spend money. Just teasing. But anyways, campaign slogan, For the Children. But let's be honest. This isn't about For the Children. Changing the name is a bit disingenuous because really I just heard it, opening comments. It's to help stabilize the entire state budget. Whoa. We should be changing it to help to stabilize the entire state budget fund because that's what it's meant for. We need to stop hiding behind kids. Quit trying to fake out, gaslight the population. This is about writing a blank check so that state government can do everything they'd ever thought that they ever wanted to do at any point, spend as much money as they can. It's more than just where it used to be balancing the budget on the taxpayers' back, on the students' back. Now it's about balancing the budget on taxpayers' back and continuing their addiction to spending and trying to say, yeah, but we're going to do it for the children. I asked for a no vote. I think, again, there needs to be some honesty here about what these funds can actually be spent on. And, you know, I know you can make the case that we're going to spend it on children, but the reality is it's going to be spent to ensure that helps stabilize the entire state budget. That's why, you know, excess state revenues was probably a more decent name for that fund. I asked for a no vote on L014. Let's be honest. Let's be honest to the taxpayers, to the voters, what we're actually doing here. It's excess state revenues that can be spent anywhere. Ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned in my comments, asking for an aye vote on the bill, We cannot define the uses of that fund in this bill, given the title of the bill and the original purpose of the bill. We are looking at additional legislation to narrow what those purposes are. As I said in my opening comments asking for an aye vote on this amendment, we are thinking that that would include things like additional dollars for K-12. There are a whole lot more there a whole lot more available to invest in K The lobby for K has been remarkably successful at bringing in those dollars I expect they will be in the future as well whether that pre or support for kids with disabilities we are looking at alternative vehicle to an alternative bill that would define that particular piece because, again, we cannot define that in this bill without a title ruling. So we will be narrowing the purpose of that fund, which is why we are renaming it here in this bill. But, again, we cannot do it in this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm almost positive that we already have a fund that talks about children. If I remember right, it's the Kids Matter Fund that actually would, that has narrow scope to it. I'm not sure why we're calling this the Children's Fund. I mean, I'm sure it has something to do with trying to take it to the voters and say that we're going to do it for children. But here's what I want to know, is that we're only doing the amount that is the positive factor. What about all the money that's going to be put in there for the saving of the budget? I'm reading what the legislative staff gave us when we're talking about available amount of dollars for other purposes. So in 2028 and 2029, it's $233 million extra after the positive factors paid. 2029 to 2030, we're talking about $1 billion. 2030 to 2031, $1.7 billion. I mean, it keeps going up and up and up, and you see that the Tabor refunds go away. And so I think that if we're going to do this for the children, like it says in here, it needs to be all of it for the children, not just the positive factor, all of it. So if that's the way it's going to be sold to the people, We need to be honest because I think it says it right there in the ballot language. It just talks about teachers pay teachers, smaller class sizes, trades, that sort of thing. We need to be honest about this and it needs to go all to that. But right now with this amendment, it just says it's only the positive factor. It's not all of it. So I have a real problem with this. Again, we need to be honest with the people when we're talking about this. I ask for a no vote on L14.

All those in favor say aye. Aye.

No.

Amendment L-19, amend printed bill, page 7 of the bill, strike line 17 and 18.

To the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill does a couple of things. First, the creation of the children's account. This first section here ensures the correct homestead accounting with that account. This second part here, line 17 through 21, is a very important part. We have heard concerns from folks out in communities across the state that the very creative budget committee could just create a negative factor, paid for with a positive factor. And so what line 17 through 21 says is that there is a required maintenance of effort in existing K funds You cannot simply reduce what it is that you are giving to K on one hand and pay for it with the other That is a very important change that we make here. And then the rest of this is about accelerating the use of these funds. The bill as it is currently drafted takes the revenue above the current rationing limit, puts it into that children's account, and then spends it the following year on that positive factor. So there is, in other words, there is a year lag between. What this does is simply makes it part of the regular budgeting process. We know what that revenue limit will be every year, and the same as we do every year with the forecasts that the budget committee receives. This just makes it part of that regular budgeting process. Ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

No.

Yes, we are to the bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So a couple of things up here. I brought the bill with me, the pre-amended version, and a couple of things that I want to talk about. I'm going to talk about again that, and we heard it in the opening comments about balancing the budget because essentially we're going to be getting rid of people's Tabor refunds completely. But the thing about it is, is like I wanted to go to page seven, section, the end of section two here where it says a district's positive factor acceleration percentages available to the districts to fund. and we got Roman numeral, the first Roman numeral there on line seven. It says increasing teachers pay. The next one's improving teacher retention, lowering class sizes, increasing access to career technical courses. And then it talks about the legislative council staff shall annually protect a budget year's positive factor accelerating percentage as soon as practicable based upon the March revenue forecast, and it talks about the General Assembly in setting the budget for the next state fiscal year. So it talks about that. It may be used for that, maybe. And then let's go back to the ballot language, where it says, shall state investment in K-12 public education increase 2% each year for the next 10 years with investments used to increase teachers' pay, improve teachers' retention, lower class sizes and increase access to career and technical courses without raising taxes but instead funded by raising the annual limit on the state fiscal year spending only by the amount spent on public k-12 education as a voter approved revenue change and required requiring an annual public release independent audit to show how the new investments are spent. Doesn't say anything about balancing the budget. Doesn't say anything about where the excess revenues are going. That is just, I mean, this is, this language, I know it talks about plain language, and I heard that a lot in the Props Committee when we heard this. It's in the plain language. Well, the plain language is not telling us about the excess revenues. Where's that going? Where's the Tabor refunds going other than just a little bit that's going to K through 12 Where the rest of it going That an issue We not being honest with the voters with this If this is the way the language is going to read then I have amendment

Amendment Senate Appropriations Committee Report dated April 17, 2026, page 6, line 3, strike may and substitute shall transfer the remainder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-12,

on l12 senator bridges go ahead who's going next senator kirkmaier thank you mr chair

Further discussion on the amendment?

Senator Pelton?

Senator Carson.

Senator Bridges.

Discussion of the amendment. Senator Kirkmeyer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that question because it actually goes directly to the heart of what this referred measure does. This referred measure does not send dollars out through total program because total program is entirely at the discretion of the district. And what we are asking voters in this referred measure is do you want to increase funding for K-12 public schools for four specific purposes? And the reason we don't put those dollars out through total program is as soon as they go through total program, the state's No longer has control over what it is that schools can use those dollars for. Total program is mingled with local funds, and as soon as those local funds are mingled, local control has the final say on how those dollars are used. Because these dollars are not part of that, they are state dollars, we can say you can only use them for the purposes in this referred measure, which includes increasing teacher pay, reducing class sizes, reducing turnover, increasing workforce development programs across this state. That's it. Total program is anything a district wants it to be. And I think we are talking about, I think there was a demonization of these funds being used for admin. Total program is where dollars can be used for admin. Positive factor is where they can't. I ask for a no vote on this amendment.

Senator Bridges. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a fair bit off the topic of the amendment, but just to complete this discussion quickly, the way that legislation works is when you say something is available to fund and you list four things with an and, and then that's it, then those funds can only be used for those four things. Yes, they can be used for any one of those four things, any two of those four things, any three, even all four of those things, but they cannot be used for anything that is not one of those four things. That's how legal language works. The positive factor is limited to just funding those four things. The reason the total program is mentioned in this section is because the distribution method, the the way that dollars are allocated through the positive factor is based on the allocation of dollars in total program and so all this says is if you're a school district and you get one dollar and the positive factor allows a ten percent increase you get ten cents but if you have ten dollars you get a dollar so districts get different money depending on the funding formula. We have a new funding formula that changes how those districts get money, and we're just saying the positive factor is on top of that formula. It's not a flat. It's not flat across all districts. It's based on the formula, which is equitable. Finally, that's all that says. That's why there's the reference that to the to the total program in that section to this amendment. Again, this is about the children's account. These are funds that will be used solely to the benefit of kids could be k-12 could be pre-k could be parents serving their disabled kids that is i think the what this amendment addresses has already been addressed i ask for a no vote again on this amendment thank you senator pelton thank

And the state education fund was created in House Bill 25 We heard a lot about this in my caucus last year from the good senator from Weld County She talked about it a lot in there when we were talking about school finance and that sort of thing But the money in the account must only be used for district total program funding and total state funding for all categorical programs. In an article in The Sun last year, then Colorado Education Association President Kevin Vick was quoted as having said that the amendment to House Bill 25-13-20 that created the Kids Matter account strives to put education funding and kids' futures at the forefront of the line. That's what it said. That's what the CEA president said that. And basically what this amendment does is the language that's going onto the ballot, It just marries up the language from the ballot to where the money is going. All of the money. Not just a little portion of the Tabor refunds. All of the money gets put in the Kids Matter Fund. All of it. That's why this amendment is so important to this bill. this language this ballot language does not talk about anywhere where the excess revenue is going nowhere just talks about k-12 education this amendment makes this language honest to the voters that's what it does that's what we're asking to do with this with this amendment it's just to make sure that we're honest about what we're putting in front of the voters that's what we're asking. I ask for an aye vote on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I've been paying attention to this because it's a big issue in a lot of the communities in my district. So when this bill came out, I thought this was actually an answer to what was said last year and was quoted here earlier in regards to the Kids Matter account strives to put education funding and kids' futures at the front of the line. I thought what we were doing with this when I first heard of it is we were responding to that and that we were going to take Colorado's good intentions and tax money and put it right directly to the Kids Matter account. But after reading it, after talking with my colleagues, I'm finding that it's not doing that. But this amendment, 014, is that correct? Does that very thing. It puts all of the dollars that we raise into the kids' 012. You've got to be careful about my numbers. Puts all of the money from this referendum that will be in front of our voters. It gives them an opportunity to put the money that we've been talking about towards the Kids Matter Fund. I think that may be what the voting public would like to see, rather than divvying it up and percentages and all those kind of things. Let just be straight up and straight out If we going to do this for education and for the kids let put it in the Kids Matter Fund and not make people guess I ask for a yes vote on 0

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. it's difficult to me to understand why the senator from Greenwood Village would oppose this amendment. I think it makes a vast improvement in what's going to be put before the voters. You know, the voters of this state are smart, and they're going to figure out very quickly that the vast majority of the money that's being asked for here is in fact not going to go to education. And I think when it gets out there to the voters, that's going to be the Achilles heel of this issue. Because I think the voters will very quickly understand

Minority Leader Simpson.

further discussion on the amendment seen on the motion of force is the adoption of amendment L012 all those in favor say aye opposed no the noes have it and that amendment is lost Senator Kirkmeyer

There is an amendment at the desk. So I do have an amendment. Will the clerk please read L15? Amendment L15.

Senator Bridges. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, the amendment that changed it to the Children's Fund is number 14. This amendment is number 15. So I believe we had the idea first. We were not trying to head off anything that we learned about. So just from a numbering perspective, just that's how the numbers, just the numbers we came first on this. but I'll also say I think more importantly and more to the point there were a lot of things that were said in the last several minutes the most important one to address here is that this is a tax of some kind because Tabor is very clear that anything that is a tax must start with shall taxes be raised by and there is this is not starting with that when I know there's an amendment coming about the title board the title board didn't say shall taxes taxes be raised by. This is not a tax increase. And even the strictest definition of that in the Colorado Constitution disagrees, right? This is not, or rather agrees. The strictest interpretation of the Colorado Constitution agrees. This is about allowing education funding

Thank you for that. Senator Liston.

Senator Carson.

And it's important that you as the voters know what's really happening here. It's important that you know exactly where your money is going. Despite being advertised as a financial boon for schools, school districts will only receive a small portion. The majority of the money being retained under this bill will be spent on whatever this legislature wants to spend it on. So I think calling it the government waste cash fund is appropriate, and I ask for an aye vote on L015. Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am really excited to get up and talk about this amendment. L15 The reason why I'm excited to get up and talk about L15 is because I worry that we continue in this building to erode the trust of those who sent us here. You hear all the time Jokes about politicians, jokes about government, about government inefficiency, can't trust a politician. and this bill is the true embodiment of all of those things. Let's call it what it is. I appreciate my good colleague from Grand Junction coming up here and saying the words she said, naming this as what it is we're using education as a front because of Tabor, we apparently can't have nice things. I've heard that said. That's not true. Tabor is why citizens have nice things. Tabor is why they have more money in their pockets rather than us using it on pet projects. Tabor keeps government honest. This amendment, L15, is about telling the truth, calling it what it is, establishing trust with the citizens that we serve. You know, we want to raise money because we need to spend more. Well, how about we do something really novel? Let's figure out how we can, oh gosh, attract and retain businesses in the state of Colorado rather than running them out the door. How about that? Just as an idea, that's one way to increase revenues. But rather than doing that, we are taking money out of the pockets of our citizens. That's what this bill is about. this bill does raise taxes, and we, by golly, should at least be honest. Let's deal with those who sent us here honestly. I urge an aye vote on L-15.

Senator Kipp. Yeah, thank you. And I would just re-ask for a no vote on this amendment. I mean, first, I do want to be very clear about what a tax increase is. A tax increase is not when you go to the voters as we are going to the voters and saying, can we retain revenue? That is, can we keep the money that you have already paid in taxes? If you want to increase the tax rate, I guess it's going from left to right there, but yeah, it's going that way. But if you want to increase the tax rate, that number would go up, and there would be potentially more money to retain. This bill does exactly what Tabor says we should do. This bill says, shall, can we, we're asking you, the voters, if we can retain that revenue that you have already paid in taxes for the purposes here. And we have very clearly said, we heard you. We don't want that money to be undefined. Okay, we're going to create something called a children's fund, and we are going to define in another vehicle what that money is able to be used for, which are purposes related to benefiting the children of Colorado. So, and again, I ask for a no vote on L015.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had the opportunity to hear this bill in the Education Committee. A few weeks ago it was in a committee that I was in and I think it was the finance Committee Right Right Kind of the same However, it deals with both topics. It does touch on both. This bill has multiple implications. We could have done this if our only goal here was to strengthen funding for education. We could have done it when we built the budget this year. We could have addressed it there. This bill asks to add a component that can be, will be potentially offensive to our voters and that's why we're going to them with the question. And here we are, asking the voters to let the government keep their money. If we're going to ask hardworking Coloradoans to hand over their taxpayer bill of rights refunds, least we can do is make sure we're telling them the whole story. What you're hearing from our bill sponsors is that it's all about education, but what they're not talking about is the massive void this is leaving for an increased opportunity to collect fees and taxes and keep them from the citizens of Colorado. We should address anything that potentially has the state collecting and increasing fees. This matters. This bill asks voters to allow the state to retain and spend revenue above the cap in an amount equal to all state public K-12 education funding. The practical and indisputable effect is that the taxpayer bill of rights refunds to the Colorado taxpayers will become exceedingly rare, like nonexistent, especially for the next 10 years. Reasonable people can disagree about whether that tradeoff's worth it. That's what the November ballot's for. The voters will decide this issue. I sure hope we have a chance to make sure that they know exactly the secondary implications of what this will do. When you raise the Tabor cap by that much, you create enormous new fiscal headroom beneath it. Under the current law, fee revenue counts against the Tabor Cap. That means every dollar of fee revenue, not tax revenue, but fee revenue, the state collects is constrained. Raising the ceiling by $10 to $12 billion in that headroom, and you've just quietly removed the constitutional break on fee collections. Again, what's not being said. The voters, when they read the ballot title this November, are going to be told that this measure funds public education without raising taxes. We've heard that. It doesn't say anything about the increased opportunity to charge fees. if we pass this bill and if fee collections then expand into the new headroom we created we will have made the ballot language somewhere between incomplete and misleading With that, I have an amendment. There is an amendment at the desk.

Amendment L13. Amendment Printed Bill Page 11 on for line 13. Insert 24-77.

Senator Frizzell.

Further discussion on the amendment?

Senator Bright.

Senator Zamora Wilson.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of amendment L013. three. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. The no's have it and that amendment is lost. Senator Wallace. Thank you Mr. Chair. Members I wanted to take a moment to rise in support of

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Arguing for an amendment on the long bill to specifically require that the funding would go to increase teacher pay. Want to know what happened? No. One side of the aisle voted for it. The other side of the aisle with the majority said no No we not going to do that We not going to do that So then I went and fought for it to get increased funding in education and got it So there isn't anything about any of us saying that we don't support teachers. What we're saying is you actually ought to be honest. We ought to be honest with them. When we pass legislation, we think that that legislation should have integrity, and it shouldn't be gaslighting people. I talked to several teachers that said, but you've got to vote for 135 because we're going to get teacher pay. We're going to get an increase in our teacher pay. And I said, have you gone to your school board? Because the legislature doesn't get to decide on teacher pay. How many times did I hear that in the education committee? Legislature doesn't get to decide what your teacher pay is. That's the school board. And even with this money going to your school board, your school district, you're still going to have to go to your school board to get an increase in teacher pay. There is nothing, nothing in this bill that requires, that says shall go towards teacher pay. Nothing. It says that the district's positive factor, the money they get, is available to a district to fund increasing teacher pay. It's available to them. We're not putting a mandate in here. We don't say it has to go to teacher pay. In fact, it can go to improving teacher retention. It can go to lowering class sizes and increasing access to career and technical courses, which someone reminded me is a categorical. The funding can go to the categorical. Doesn't increase the base amount, though. Whatever money you put into that categorical is on your own, school districts. Doesn't increase that base amount. It won't automatically increase by inflation. Nope. Not going to happen. We didn't do that. didn't do that in here you know I was trying to say what does lowering class size mean I think here's what it means it's in the declaration talks about adequacy studies found that where Colorado schools fully funded and fairly every student would have individual attention I think it means about individual attention that it's not just trying to increase the number of teachers so that you have a different ratio so we get back down to maybe 1 to 20 instead of 1 to 30 or 1 to 25 or whatever it is. Maybe we're trying to get down to 1 to 20 to 20 or 15 or something. But it also talks about counselors, health professionals, tutors, tutors. They could use it for tutors. They could use it for more special education funding and really bring in so they have special attention and bring in more special education instructors that will help with those students that need that additional attention. That would lower class sizes. They could do it, every teacher would have, you know, could get professional development and coaching and other things like that. And yes, maybe, maybe you might increase the salary. But there is nothing in this bill that says that it has to go to teacher pay increases. And for those teachers who keep coming down here and want to talk to me, I'm more than happy to talk to you and explain it to you. You have to go to your school board. they decide how the funding that comes to the schools they decide how it's done they put the budget together they decide whether or not you're going to get teacher pay increases whether the teacher's salary is going to increase nothing in this bill does that says it should be available for teacher pay well I got news for you the whole total program amount the whole allocation that is sent to school districts could be used and is available for teacher pay So what we're doing here is, and what we're talking about here is, let's be clear. Let's stop gaslighting the taxpayers and teachers for that matter. Let's stop acting like, yeah, your teacher pays going to increase because you aren't guaranteeing it. You don't know that. That's not what this bill does. What we're saying is you should be clear. We should be clear what we're saying to our taxpayers. We should have integrity when we talk to them and when we pass bills. They should be straightforward. Instead of trying to hide it, we all know when you increase the cap, you are increasing taxes because you are eliminating the Tabor surplus. You are eliminating people's surplus check. Their refund check goes away. It goes away. You're increasing the cap by such amounts that it will be years, if ever, before there is a Tabor surplus. I'm just going to remind you all before I present this amendment. Do you remember Senate Bill 23303? Almost all of us were here. A couple of you weren't. That was Prop HH. You remember that bill? They had a bill title that said show the state reduced property taxes. How deceiving was that? Shall the state reduce property taxes, provide property tax relief by using a portion of the state's surplus? Do you remember what happened when you don't tell the public, when you're not truthful with them, when you try to hide the tax increase, just like in Proposition HH? Failed miserably. And I can tell you, being the co-chair of that campaign, I went out and told everybody, do you trust them? They put a bill title out that says they're going to reduce your property taxes. They neglected to put in the part that says, oh, and we're going to take your TABOR refund check. We're going to take your TABOR refund check, the TABOR surplus, and use it to reduce your property taxes. They didn't tell you that. It's just like this ballot initiative, this ballot question, which reads, shall the state invest in K-12 public education? Sounds nice. That sounds good. there is going to be an investment in K-12 education. Shall it increase by 2% each year? Now, how many people in this state do you think know how much funding goes to K-12 education? How many people in this room do you think knows how much goes to K-12 education funding? But shall it increase by 2%? I don't think that really sounds like a lot, but it is a lot. Shall the investment in K-12 public education increase for the next 10 years, with investments used to increase teacher pay? Should have put in maybe, with investments that maybe will increase teacher pay, maybe improve teacher retention, lower class sizes, increase access to career and technical courses without raising taxes. That's what's in this bill title. That's what's going to be in the question on the ballot. Shall we invest in K-12 public education without raising your taxes to maybe, well no maybe's not in here, sorry, Shall the state invest in K-12 public education, increase teacher pay without raising taxes, but instead funded by raising the annual limit? Do you think they know what the annual limit is? Why can't we just be clear? Why can't it just be clear? Why can't we be transparent? Why can't we tell our constituents, our voters in this state, actually what's going to happen? Why can't we do that? You know, every time I put out these ballot questions that are just not transparent, they're gaslighting the public. they're trying to hide, trying to hide here what's really happening. And the last experience y'all had with this was Prop HH. I can remember being in this while telling everybody, no, you're going to increase taxes. Oh, no, we're not. Yes, yes, you were. And it's the same in this one. We all understand exactly what Tabor says. We understand that Tabor says that should you increase taxes, you've got to go to a vote of the people. You want to change tax policy? You need to go to a vote of the people. We agree. We just think when you go to the vote of the people, you should tell them exactly what you're doing and stop hiding it in language that says, without raising your taxes, but we're going to raise the annual limit. The annual which limit? The Tabor cap. You're raising the Tabor cap. Yes. Believe me, I understand. I understand exactly what's in Tabor. I became a county commissioner in 1993 first year TABOR had to be implemented I know exactly what's in TABOR I know exactly why TABOR was implemented because government ran amok annually published released and then we'll have an independent audit to show how the new investments are spent we're already supposed to be showing how the investments are spent it's called a budget we're already supposed to be telling everybody how the investment is spent investment we're investing we're investing in your taxpayers taxpayer dollars all of them we want them all because you know what else Tabor says if you're going to do this you're going to take my Tabor refund check you have to tell me and you're trying to hide it without raising taxes That is very disingenuous and I am very disappointed. And in fact, this went to the title board, as you all know. It went there. And the headline read, Colorado Tabor refund proposal sparks debate, this is at the title board, over potentially deceptive ballot wording. Their language not mine I just agree with it So I have an amendment It at the desk

Sorry. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read amendment number 17?

Senator Kirkmeyer.

To the amendment, Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Frazzell. Yikes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in enthusiastic support of Amendment L-17. You know, one of the first times I met Senator Kirkmeyer was working on Prop HH because I don't know if you remember back then, so this was in 2023, I think. Was it 2023? And the hot topic that year was property taxes. Everybody was, they were losing their minds over property taxes because they were increasing so dramatically. It was awful. It was awful, awful for our citizens because they were literally, some of them, getting taxed out of their homes. And there a whole long list of reasons and things that happened the Gallagher repeal that caused that But I want to make sure we have context Because the reason that Prop HH gave for taking your Tabor refund was we're going to lower your property tax. so you should vote for this. Let's vote for this now so that you can lower your property tax. We're the government. We're here to help. That measure failed almost 60-40. It was dramatic. candidly it renewed my faith in humanity that people actually listen and that they read and they educate themselves about ballot measures but the thing that i heard over and over and over again is but i have to vote for this because my property taxes are too high this is going to help me and then they realized what was really going to happen this is the same dadgum thing we are using people's emotions to get them to vote a certain way and the way that's being proposed what is hoped to achieve is to do away with the taxpayer bill of rights. That's what this is about. That's what this is for. It's not about educating kids. It's not about teacher salary. You can, any school district can do what Douglas County Schools did two years ago and go to their voters and say, do you want to raise teacher salary? And if the voters say yes, which they did in Douglas County, they approved $66 million to go to teachers' salaries. Not anything else. That's what it was for. The taxpayers spoke, the voters spoke, and that was approved. it's things like this it's it's things like this that make me embarrassed to be here because we have got to be truthful we have got to be truthful to the people that we serve this is a great amendment because you know what it tells the truth. It says this is what we're trying to do. We're trying to really prop up the budget by keeping all of your Tabor refunds. We're taking the money that should be going back to your pocket and we're going to keep it and we're going to do stuff with it. We don't know what. Maybe we'll figure that out. Probably we will. I don have the facts rolling around in my head but I quite certain the good senator from Brighton could tell me exactly how much the state budget has increased over the last eight years. But clearly it's not enough. how much taxpayer money is sitting in enterprise funds. How much of our hard-earned dollars sitting in cash funds? It's a lot. We're using those money, those funds, to balance our budget this year. It's a lot. One-time funds getting scraped. I don't think it's too much. I don't think our citizens are asking too much when they ask for us to tell the truth. I don't think so. Honesty is the best policy, right? This amendment should be an easy vote for every single person here in this chamber. You know, we talk about teacher salary. That's one option for these funds, some of the funds. Most of the funds are going to the state, keep in mind. The vast majority of the funds going to the state coffers, a little bit going to school districts. What was it, Baca County's getting like $600, $700? Wow. But, yeah, so we're talking about positive factor funding is available, not mandated. to a district. They can increase teacher pay. They can improve teacher retention. It's always good, especially since we have a teacher shortage. Actually, right now, we're forever trying to get people to go into this field. Lowering class sizes and increasing access to career and technical courses. All of these things can already be done by a local government school district. They already can. All they have to do is ask the citizens for more funding. And those citizens can say, yeah, that makes sense. Or they can say, you know what, I'm having a rough year right now. I don't think we can afford this. because the state just up fees on something. But school districts can already do this. I have a huge issue, huge, huge issue with this bill talking about, as part of the ballot language, Senator Frizzell, friendly reminder to keep it to the amendment, please. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I was just getting back to the amendment, which is replacing that amendment L17, which would be replacing language on page 13 of the bill. I'm looking at the introduced version, though, so for those of you at home who are following along. And this language that's proposed by this bill, beginning on line 15 of page 13,

Which is interesting. That's an interesting statement in and of itself because we already are increasing K-12 dollars every year. Anywho, each year for the next 10 years with investments used to, first thing on the list, by golly, increase teacher pay. So this amendment hits the reset button. And I'm very, very, very, very grateful to the good senator from Brighton for bringing this. Because this is true. This amendment speaks the truth. There, and says, basically, we're changing up the ballot language. shall there be a change to the Colorado revised statutes allowing the state to keep and spend an amount of state revenue equal to one year of state public K-12 education funding as a voter-approved revenue change under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Love that. Love that it calls out the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. And in connection therewith, requiring the state to use a portion of the money to increase state funding for public K-12 education for 10 years. Okay. It's not making any empty promises. So this is why this amendment is important, because it's not saying it's got to be used for teacher pay or class sizes, because that's not what the bill does. It doesn't say shall. It doesn't say shall increase teacher pay. So I appreciate this. I appreciate the truth of this amendment. But the thing that is most important in this amendment is the last sentence, and allowing the state to use the rest of the money for any purpose determined by the state legislature. That's the truth. That's the truth. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate the effort. Now, if you could just tell us what it means by lowering class sizes.

It was hours ago now at this point. But the bill we heard just before this from the good senator from Adams County was all about how the title board language is incomprehensible to normal people. So I think if you read this, I agree. It is less clear. And so this is the most important part here. It is sort of restructuring the question. I don't think the structure of the question is really the most important point here. And there have actually been other measures like 1-2-3 that had the same structure as the language in our current bill, which asks about the K-12 funding first, the purposes of that funding, the restricted purposes of that funding, the pay for, and then the audit. This is actually a pattern that we have had on the ballot before. I think it is a clearer way to do it because this is what we're trying to do. We're trying to make this as clear as possible to the voters of Colorado. Moreover, the Title Board took out some detail, and the detail matters. The detail in this really matters. Because if you don't have the 2% every year piece in the question, then that part isn't required. Then you really have thrown the doors wide. It is extraordinarily important that the 2% stay in this question, or we could lose it. So I do not agree with the Title Board's decision to take out that detail. I think it is less clear for the voters, and it also removes the obligation that we have to spend those funds on the positive factor, on increasing funding for K-12 public education. And then finally this is I think the most important thing that came from the Title Board and this is really important because going into the title board what we have seen in the past is this particular strategy where folks who oppose the bill present the bill to title board Generally, the objective there is to prove this is not single subject, and this is very clearly single subject. This has been affirmed by the Title Board as single subject. I think the hope was that this would be disapproved as single subject. It was not. This is a single subject. I think that the Title Board language is incomprehensible. I think the language we have in the bill is clear. the lawyers who draft our bills believe that this accurately describes what this legislation does. I ask for a no vote on amendment.

17. They had duplicate amendments drafted. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And yes, we did have duplicates. Great minds think alike sometimes. But I will say this. Details do matter. Details do matter. Because if we were to add 2% in there every year, like the good senator from Greenwood Village said, okay, fine. Then let's also put at the end where it says, and allowing the state to use the rest of the money for any purpose determined by the state legislature. That needs to be added in there too because details do matter. That's the part that when I talk about the title board, the title board who has three members, by the way, who are appointed by the SOS, the AG, and this legislature, all under one party rule. so i'm just saying that they they said and allowing the state to use the rest of the money for any purpose determined by the state legislature that needs to be in the ballot language details do matter totally agree that part needs to be in there right now there's nothing in there that talks about the excess revenue. It just talks about the little bit of money that goes to K through 12. So if we're going to be honest to the voters about what they're voting on, they need to be voting on this. They need to be saying that, where's my money going? You know, it's funny because my father, who I talked to all the time, when he was like, I want my Tabor refund. And I said, dad, how much do you think you'd get back? And he says, I think I could get like $700 back this year or $300. And I said, would you allow us to use that money for something else? He goes, no, that is my money. That's how he looks at it. That's how everybody looks at it, because it is their money. And it is raising taxes if you raise that cap. So what I'm asking for on this amendment, I'm fine if you want to revise this amendment. We can still talk about the 2%, but the part that needs to be in here, in the ballot language is the very last sentence. To use a portion of the money to increase state funding for K-12 education for 10 years and allowing the state to use the rest of the money for any purpose determined by the state legislature. Billions of dollars is what we're talking about, folks. not just a little bit, billions of dollars, that will be used on anything that this legislature determines That needs to be what people are voting for We need to talk about honesty with the ballot That's what we need to talk about. I ask for an aye vote on L-17.

Aye.

No.

I know, so close.

Will the clerk please read amendment number 21? Amendment L21, amendment of the Senate Appropriations Committee Report.

Would you like to move your amendment?

Senator Kipp. You know, I really appreciate how my colleague is bending over backwards to make our colleagues on this other side of the aisle happy. And if this makes them happy, great. This does the same thing, but with a lot more words. So I don't really care if people vote on it or not, but if it makes my colleagues happy, great. Thank you. It may not.

Senator Pelton B. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate all the hard work that the sponsor has done to think about this. My only issue is, again, it's still up to the local governments to do this. And I just want to make sure that we're not taking it away from local governments. There's a lot of bill that takes away from local governments in this chamber, and I want to make sure that we're not doing that with this aspect of it. Because if I was a local government, and let's say I was in charge because I've done this before, and the state said we were going to allocate you some money, I'm going to say, oh, great, I'm going to take all the money away that I had allocated and then just put the state money there, and then I can use this money for whatever I wanted to. So that is also an aspect of it. We just have to be very careful about infringing on what local governments can and can't do. I do appreciate this amendment, but I just would like to just bring that up a little bit about being very, very careful about how local governments allocate.

You know, let me get the backwards part in.

Seeing no further discussion, the...

Let's call everybody in. A division has been requested.

A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please be seated. I think we should vote for the division.

The... The motion is the adoption of Amendment L-21. All those in favor, please stand and remain standing.

Okay, please be seated. All those opposed to the amendment, please stand. The chair is not in doubt. The amendment is adopted. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is for the adoption of Senate Bill 135.

Aye.

No. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted.

The motion is to lay over Senate Bill 134 until Monday, April 27th.

Aye.

The bill will be laid over.

The motion is to lay over Senate Bill 68 until Monday, April 27th.

Aye.

The ayes have it. The bill will be laid over.

The motion is to lay over Senate Bill 70 until Monday, April 27th.

Aye.

The ayes have it. The bill will be laid over.

The motion is for Senate Bill 131 to layover until Monday, April 27th.

Aye.

The ayes have it, and the bill will be laid over.

The motion is to lay over House Bill 1005 until Thursday, April 30th.

Aye.

The ayes have it and the bill will be laid over.

The motion is to lay over the remainder of the calendar until Monday, April 27th.

Aye.

The ayes have it and the balance of the calendar will be laid over.

The motion is for the committee to rise and report. All those in favor please say aye.

The Senate will come to order Senator Wallace Thank you Mr President The committee has met and had several bills under consideration Will the clerk please read the report?

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the report.

Mr. Schaffler, please your title of S-001.

Senator Pelton B.

Senator Bridges. Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree children matter, it's part of why we changed the fund to be called the Children's Account. It will go towards only programs that improve the lives of children, whether that is for those kids with developmental disabilities or whether that is to pre-K or whether that is to K-12. The 2% positive factor is the required amount. It is the minimum amount. It is the guaranteed amount going towards K-12. It is certainly though not all that can be done if we have an incredibly strong economy over the next 10 years, if $4 gas prices do not crash this economy, if, if, if. So I believe that we have addressed the concerns, the primary concerns related to this particular amendment. Ask for a no vote. Ask for a no vote on the amendment.

Senators, Mr. Majority Leader, Marchman, Kip, Wallace, Gonzalez, Amabile, Doherty. Judah Benavidez Cutter Roberts Bridges

Members of the Board of Assessment Appeals, effective July 1, 2025, for terms expiring June 30, 2026. Diane DeVries of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, reappointed. Claudia Crane of Crestone, Colorado, reappointed. John DeRungs of Denver, Colorado, reappointed. Monty Mullins of Alamosa, Colorado, reappointed. Jess Ketchum of Pagosa Springs, Colorado, reappointed. Jeb Marsh of Dillon, Colorado, reappointed. Effective July 1st, 2025 for a term expiring June 30th, 2029. Valerie Carissa Bartell of Longmont, Colorado, reappointed. Member of the Statewide Internet Portal Authority, effective June 2nd, 2025 for term expiring June 1st, 2029. Danielle Morel of Denver, Colorado, serve as a member from the private sector, reappointed. Members of the Underground Damage Prevention Safety Commission, effective January 2nd, 2026, for terms expiring January 1st, 2029. Martin Schmidt of Gunnison, Colorado, the service representative of the county is appointed. Eric Anderson of Denver, Colorado, the service representative of municipalities appointed. Brandon Bernard of Colorado Springs, Colorado, the service representative of water utilities appointed. Jason Thicke of Milliken, Colorado, the service representative of energy producers appointed. Kathleen Anderson of Aurora, Colorado, the service representative of contractors reappointed. Anne-Marie Bluff of Peyton, Colorado, the service representative of excavators reappointed. Member of the Uninsured Employer Board, effective September 2nd, 2025, for term expiring September 1st, 2028. David Loomis of Littleton, Colorado, to serve as a representative of employers appointed. Members of the Board of Real Estate Appraisers, effective July 2, 2025, for term expiring July 1, 2028. Valerie Bartell of Longmont, Colorado, to serve as a real estate appraiser with experience in eminent domain matters appointed. For term expiring July 1, 2028, Bessie Cajas of Denver, Colorado, to serve as a public member appointed. Member of the Parks and Wildlife Commission for term expiring July 1 2029 Francis Phil Silva Blaney of Colorado Springs Colorado deserves a representative of sportspersons and outfitters appointed

Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of all the appointments on consideration of Governor's Appointments Consent Calendar. Diane DeVries of Wheat Ridge, Claudia Crane of Cresto, and John DeRungs of Denver, Monty Mullins of Lalamosa, John Ketchum of Pagosa Springs, Jeb Marsh of Dillon, Valerie Clarissa Bartell for the Board of Assessment Appeals, Danielle Morell of Denver for the State Internet Portal Authority, Martin Schmidt of Gunnison, Eric Anderson of Denver, Brandon Bernard of Colorado Springs, John Fick of Milliken, Kathleen Anderson of Aurora, Anne-Marie Bluff of Payton for the Underground Damage Prevention Safety Commission, David Loomis of Littleton for the Uninsured Employer Board Valerie Bartell of Longmont Bessie Cachas of Denver for the Board of Real Estate Appraisers and Francis Silver Blaney of Colorado Springs for the Parks and Wildlife Commission I had to listen to him to make sure I listened to him

Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to rise in enthusiastic support for a wonderful new CPW commissioner, Fran Silva Blaney. she and her daughter run a pretty amazing it's an angling outfitter group and it's in divide and I'm going to be going with them to go do some fishing and learn how to learn learn about the waters there but I would encourage you to reach out she's doing really great work and I was really excited to see her on consent and just wanted to say that so thank you very much very good

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the appointments of Christopher Sicko and John Emmerich as members of the Parks and Wildlife Commission lay over until Thursday, March 14, 2026. May 14th.

Members of the Colorado State Fair Authority Board of Commissioners for terms expiring November 1, 2029. Thomas Downey of Denver, Colorado, serves as a representative of Agriculture District 1 as a Democrat appointed. Gregory Kulimitz of LaHunta, Colorado, serves as a representative of the state at large and as a Democrat appointed. Jeffrey Mandarich of Colorado Springs, Colorado, serves as a representative of the state at large and as an unaffiliated reappointed.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the confirmation of Thomas Downey of Denver, Gregory Kolomitz of LaHunta, and Jeffrey Mandrich of Colorado Springs to be members of the Colorado State Fair Authority Board of Commissioners.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm the reason why these are not on the consent agenda, and this is my protest vote because this is once again from this administration trying to hurt in agriculture in the state fair. He is not appointing somebody who has raised a lot of money for the state fair in Colorado, and it's very unfortunate that he has done this, done so. I heard from constituents, some of my constituents who sit on the very board, that he has been not reappointed to. So I just wanted to make sure to let everybody know that's why it's not as controversial as the last couple of ones, but it is, it's just my protest vote is saying no, and I'll be a no vote again today to say he should have appointed the guy that was raising a lot of money to help the state fair moving forward. So I just ask for a no vote on

House Bill 1399 by Representatives Brown and Taggart and Senators of Mobile and Kirkmeyer concerning the elimination of the annual transfer from the General Fund to the Multimodal Transportation and Mitigation Options Fund and in connection therewith, reducing an appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. President. The House has acceded to the Senate amendment made by the...

I move.

I move to adopt the first report of the first conference committee on HB 26-1399.

Okay, Senator Mavala. The House acceded to our demands, so we are accepting that.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry. Oh, the repassage. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the repassage of House Bill 261399.

Zamora Wilson.

Bazley.

Senator Baisley is a no vote.

House Bill 1405 by Representative Brown and Sirota and Senators Amaboli and Kirkmeyer concerning transfers of money from certain cash funds to the general fund.

Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate adopt the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1405. Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is for the

Excellent.

Senator Amabile. I move for the repassage of House Bill 1405.

Ah, Senator Zamora Wilson.

Who is in charge over here? Who's the whip? Anybody know who the whip is? No? Okay. Right there. Speaking of. Oh, I want to, please forgive me. Please forgive me. With a vote of 31 eyes, 2 no, 0 absent, and 2 excused, House Bill 1405 is repassed. Co-sponsors. Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1380.

Senator Bridges. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate adopt the first report of the First Conference Committee on House Bill 26-1380.

Now, Senator Korkmeyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the repassage of House Bill 261380 and ask for an aye vote.

House Bill 1409 by Representatives Brown and Sirota and Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer concerning the distribution of money collected from the retail marijuana sales tax.

I move the Senate adopt the first report of the First Conference Committee on House Bill 1409 I see no further discussion motion is for the adoption of the first report of the First Conference Committee on House Bill 1409 Are there any no votes On the, with a vote of 33 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, 2 excused. The first report of the First Conference Committee on House Bill 1409 is adopted.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion is for the repassage of House Bill 1409. Are there any no votes? Senators Amora Wilson, Pelton R., Liston, Baisley, repassage of 1409. Seeing no further no votes. With a vote of 29 ayes, 4 noes, 0 absent, 2 excused. House Bill 1409 is repassed. Both sponsors. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1412.

Senator Bridges. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate to adopt the first report of the First Conference Committee on House Bill 26-14-12.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the repassage of House Bill 261412 and ask for an aye vote.

Memorandum report from the House and Senate Committees on Delayed Bills. Pursuant to Joint Rule 23C, the House and Senate Committees on Delayed Bills acting jointly extend the following deadlines for House Bill 1410 and the 2026-27 Long Bill. The Friday, April 17th deadline, the 94th legislative day for adoption of the Conference Committee report on the Long Appropriation Bill, as extended until Friday, April 24th, the 101st legislative day, is further extended until Tuesday, April 28th, 2026, the 105th legislative day. This memorandum shall be printed in the journal of each house as required by Joint Rule 23C. Representative McCluskey, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Representative Duran, House Majority Leader, Representative Caldwell, House Minority Leader, Senator Coleman, President of the Senate, Senator Rodriguez, Senate Majority Leader, Senator Simpson, Senate Minority Leader. Message from the House. The House is passed on 3rd reading and returns herewith. Senate Bill 136. The House is passed on 3rd reading and transmitted to the revised statutes. Senate Bill 95. As amended and as printed in House Journal April 17, 2026. House is passed on 3rd reading and transmitted to the revised statutes. House Bill 1132. And House Bill 1287. Amended as printed on House Journal April 22, 2026. House is passed on 3rd reading and transmitted to the revised statutes. House Bill 1130. Amended as printed on House Journal March 9, 2026. And April 22, 2026. Message from the reviser. We hear with transmit without comment as amended House Bill 1130, 1132, and 1287 without comment as amended Senate Bill 95.

House Bill 1028 by Representatives Garcia and Velasco and Senator Cutter concerning second language diploma endorsements for graduating high school students. Education. House Bill 1143 by Representatives Ricks and Joseph and Senator Weissman concerning information collected for a background check by entities that provide non-employment based educational opportunities. Education. House Bill 1226 by Representatives Wilford and Frohla Consoners Weissman and Cutter concerning measures to reduce emissions from certain electric generating units in the state Transportation and energy House Bill 1298 by Representatives Ryden and Kelty and Senator Cutter concerning the authority for criminal background checks for child welfare, out-of-home placement providers, and in connection therewith, making an appropriation. Health and Human Services. House Bill 1314 by Representatives English and Senator Exum concerning increasing family stability and connection therewith, prioritizing kinship placements in certain circumstances, and facilitating grandparent contact. Health and Human Services. House Bill 1317 by representatives McCluskey and Taggart and Senators Bridges and Furzell. Concerning creating a unified system of post-secondary talent development and in connection therewith, creating a committee to develop a plan to transition oversight of workforce development programs to the Department of Higher Education. Education.

Catlin.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I'd like to make an announcement that I think you'll enjoy. On Monday, we're going to be celebrating the Denver Summit Football Club Day at the Capitol. So the new professional women's soccer team will be celebrating the inaugural season of Colorado's first major women's sports team in our history. You ladies ought to be paying attention. This is a big deal. You're going to like it. Fellas, too. Fellas, too. There'll be the 16th. No, it's not. The 16th team in the National Women's Soccer League. Members of the team and administration will be here to celebrate in the morning, and they'll be signing autographs, and you can get a chance to get to know these young ladies. They're going to make the state of Colorado proud and the city of Denver very proud. So make sure and be here Monday morning. Thank you.

Members, just a reminder, we are currently in open enrollment now through May 11th. If you have any questions regarding benefits or open enrollment, please feel free to reach out to Shannon Briggs in accounting. Thank you for all the work today, colleagues. We will...

Senator Mabale. Thank you, Mr. President. JBC will not be meeting this afternoon.

Mr. Majority Leader. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate adjourn until 10 a.m. Monday, April 27, 2026.

Amen. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you.