Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 056

Benavidez.

Wright.

Catlin

Excuse

Doherty

Exum

Gonzalez Gonzalez

Hendrickson

Kirkmeyer Kirkmeyer

Kolker

Liston

Excuse.

Simpson.

Sullivan.

Excuse.

Excuse.

Bridges.

Let's do this.

Thank you, Mr. President. Would everybody rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance. To the flag 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.

Senator Pelton B. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate journal of March 10, 2026 be approved as corrected by the secretary.

Mr. President, the Committee on Finance has had under consideration a head of hearing on the following appointments and recommends that the appointments be placed on the consent calendar and confirmed. Member of the State Board of Equalization for terms expiring September 2, 2029, Ty Coleman of Alamosa, Colorado, to serve as a member with knowledge of property taxation appointed. Mr. President, the Committee on Finance has had under consideration a hearing on the following appointments and recommends that the appointments be placed on the consent calendar and confirmed. Member of the Financial Services Board, effective July 2, 2025, for terms expiring July 1, 2029, Robert Chavez of Antonito, Colorado, who serves as an Executive Officer of State Credit Union, appointed. Committee on Finance, after consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 118 be amended as follows, and is so amended to be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation and with a recommendation that it be placed on the consent calendar. House Bill 1003 be referred favorably to the Committee on Appropriations. House Bill 1146 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that it be placed in the consent calendar. Committee on State Veterans and Military Affairs after consideration on the merits of the Committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 88 be amended as follows. And if so amended, be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that it be placed in the consent calendar. House Bill 1038 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation.

to the roll. Majority Leader

The motion is to proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege for anyone but the President. All those in favor say aye. Polls no. The ayes have it in that motion is adopted. The Majority Leader will be fined $1 for impugning the motives of the Senate President.

Senator, Madam Assistant Minority leader. Thank you, Mr. President. May I have a moment of personal privilege? Granted. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I would like to take a moment to recognize a group of dedicated medical professionals joining us in the chamber today. We're honored to welcome a group of anesthesia residents who are currently training here in Colorado and represent the next generation of physician anesthesiologists. Please stand. They're over here in the corner. These residents are physicians who have completed medical school and are now undergoing several additional years of highly specialized training in anesthesiology. It is way too early in the morning to say that word. Where they learn to provide anesthesia care, manage pain, and respond to some of the most critical moments in patient care. In operating rooms, labor and delivery units, trauma centers, and intensive care units across our state, anesthesiologists play a vital role in keeping patients safe before, during, and after surgery. Their training is rigorous, their work is demanding, and their commitment to patient safety and high-quality care is extraordinary. We are grateful that many of these residents have chosen to train and hopefully continue practicing right here in Colorado, helping to strengthen our health care workforce and care for communities all across our state. Please join me in welcoming these anesthesia residents to the Senate today and thank them for their dedication to the people of Colorado.

You told me to wait Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move to lay over Senate Bill 77 from the final passes consent calendar until Thursday, March 12th.

Aye.

Mr. Schaffler, please add Senator Kirkmeyer and Senator Cutter to the roll.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Any discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the motion is the passage of the bill and the third reading of the bill's consent calendar.

Very good. Now are there any no votes? Seeing none, with a vote of. Senator O5 has been requested. We're going to do this again.

please add Senator Judah to the roll.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry for the delay. I once again move for the passage of the bill on third reading of bill's final pass consent calendar, which is Senate Bill 92.

Oh, Mr. Schaffler.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1040. House Bill 1040 by Representative Froehlich and Senator Cutter concerning a sterilization of rights of a person with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

The motion is the passage of House Bill 1040. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 35 I 0 0 0, absolute excuse, House Bill 1040 is passed. Cosponsors. Senators Wallace, Kip, Benavidez, Judah, Gonzalez, Danielson, Marchman, Amabile, Snyder, Weissman, Sullivan, Lindstedt, Ball, Colker, Exum, Mullica, Roberts. Please add the president.

Senator Danielson. Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 47 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 109. Senate Bill 109 by Senators Exumon Cutter and Representatives Joseph and Ricks concerning building code standards for accessible housing supported by public money.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the passage of Senate Bill 109. Are there any no votes? Senators Kirkmeyer, Zamora Wilson, Rich, Frizzell, Baisley, Liston, Helton R, Catlin, Carson, Wright, Pelton B. With a vote of 24 eyes, 11 no, 0, 0, 0, 0, excuse, Senate Bill 109 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators. Kip. Gonzalez. Judah. Wallace. Amabile. Weissman. Please add the president. General orders, second reading of bills.

The Senate will resolve itself into the committee the whole for consideration of general orders second reading of bills.

Get you some.

Mr. Majority Leader.

I move to lay over Senate Bill 40 until Thursday, March the 12th.

Aye.

Will the clerk please read the title to House Bill 261001? House Bill 1001 by Representative Basinicker and Mabry and Senators Exman Gonzalez concerning the promotion of residential developments on qualifying properties.

Is there any discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the report is adopted. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read Amendment 37?

the motion is the adoption of amendment L037. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. To the bill, Senator Mullica.

There's another amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read Amendment 38?

Senator Mullica. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-38 to House Bill 1001.

Senator Mullica. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to take this opportunity to thank the sponsors for putting in the work on this bill. This amendment actually comes from my community with some of the asks that they had. And what it does is allow city councils and county commissions to accept dedications on subdivision plats as well as apply standard subdivision regulations. It's something that my community was asking for to be able to allow. It's an amendment that the sponsors worked on and really appreciate and would ask for a yes vote.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you.

Yeah.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment 38? Senator Kirkmeyer.

Is there any further discussion of Amendment 38? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Amendment 38. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read Amendment 39?

Senator Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-39 and ask for an aye vote.

Senator Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. L-39 is also another amendment in response to these ongoing and iterative stakeholder discussions that we have had. We heard clearly about wanting to ensure that local governments would be able to verify whether these nonprofit entities qualify under the bill And so this amendment directs DOLA to publish verification guidance to support local governments in verifying the status of a nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing. As you will see from the pre-amended version of the bill, we want to be very, very clear about the types of nonprofit organizations that we are speaking about. And in response to those questions from local governments, we'll publish this guidance in order to assist those local governments to make that determination. Ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Amendment L40.

Is there any discussion of L40?

Is there any further discussion of Amendment L40? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Amendment L40. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. To the bill.

Is there any further discussion? Senator Gonzalez.

Senator Baisley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this, folks, members, boils down to, and my constituents, this boils down to the government trying to provide a solution, a government-invented solution to a government-created problem. I'll read from the bill. When local governments restrict housing developments within their jurisdiction, they impact neighboring local governments. As if it a bad thing to have local governments to create zoning rules that maintain the sense of place that created for every neighborhood It what the local government control is all about It's why people move into a neighborhood, one that they want to be as it appeared when they first arrived. And to maintain that sense of place for that area, for that zone, is what local government control is all about. So this is an attempt to override all of that local control with a state imposition. This declaration in this bill says that the General Assembly finds and declares that community opposition and restrictive local land use policies limit the housing supply, impact housing options for Coloradans of low and moderate incomes, and restrict the availability of workforce housing, thereby affecting employment growth. Another attack on the local authority, especially for the zoning. There's a quote in here about a research paper from Boston titled How to Increase Housing Affordability, found that relaxing the density restrictions, either alone or in combination with relaxing maximum height restrictions, is the most effective policy reform for increasing the housing supply and reducing multifamily rents and single-family home prices. So here again, this is a concept that comes in here from the East Coast, saying, hey, here's a way to override local control to impose a zoning law, override local zoning laws in order to accomplish more housing. A contributing factor, and I'm back near the beginning of the legislative declaration, a contributing factor to the increase in cost burden households that population growth has outpaced new housing development. Now, this portion that I'm about to read here was quoted multiple times by the folks giving witness, giving testimony in favor of this bill. This describes a demand, a need for an additional 106,000 housing units needed to overcome the housing shortfall. So that number was repeated over and over and over. It's written right in the declaration of the bill. And it caused me to think, why 106,000 new units are needed? Now, there is a natural growth in population based on whatever our repopulation growth is. And so there is a natural growth for a society, for a community in population. and therefore the market keeps up with that housing demand, unless, of course, there is some sudden injection of new population, folks, which is what was pointed out by one person who did give testimony, the only one who had the nerve to say it, and I'm going to repeat what he said, about that there is a sudden influx of immigration into the state, which, of course, is fine unless that's not done legally. But a simple Googling of that number for Colorado says that there are 200 illegal aliens living in the state of Colorado right now 200 have come in So that would explain a shortage of 106 homes that we have a shortage for to accommodate all that So here's a government solution for a government-created problem. And this is not the right solution to override local government's authority for their zoning laws in order to accommodate folks that were illegally brought in by the previous administration. This is not the right approach to force state impositions onto local governments to accommodate a previous erroneous move by the federal government. So we need to vote against this bill. This is not the right solution, and it's not where we ought to be headed as a state.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I applaud the bill sponsors for bringing forward a bill to address something that's going on in Colorado, and that is cost of housing. This is one way to do it. There's probably some other ways to tackle this problem as well. I would attribute the high cost of housing in Colorado to a basic supply and demand phenomena. There's a demand to live in this awesome state that we live in in Colorado, and there's just not enough housing to go around. And I would also offer that we should just wait a minute and look at the data because I think Coloradoans are on their way out of Colorado rather than on their way in. I feel like Coloradoans have felt that they're being overgoverned to the point where it just becomes a state that we can't live in anymore. We can't afford to live in anymore. As I was looking at the bill supporters on the Secretary of State website this morning, I can't remember seeing this long of a list of folks that oppose this bill. Also noting that the amendment list is up to 40 now. So there's been 40 different attempts at modifying this bill to get it into a good place. And I appreciate the work that the sponsors are entertaining to try to get this bill to a good spot. I feel like there is some amendments in this process that we can introduce to get this to have less folks opposing this bill and more folks supporting this bill. And I also want to introduce an amendment to the same effect.

Amendment L-35. Senator Bright. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-35 to House Bill 1001.

Senator Bright. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm introducing this amendment today, L-35, that I believe is one of the more straightforward things we could consider today. this requires that at least one public hearing be held within the relevant jurisdiction before housing development is approved under this bill I want to be direct about what this amendment is not It not an attempt to kill the Home Act It's not an effort to recreate the very discretionary processes that this bill was designed to replace. It does not give the opponents of housing a veto. It does not impose new substantive standards on developers. It does not change a single word of the eligibility requirements, the high provisions, or the density protections. All it does is guarantee that before a major development changes a neighborhood, the people who live in that neighborhood know about it and have one opportunity to be heard. This is not obstruction. This is basic democracy. The bill as written requires all qualifying developments to move through an administrative approval process. That process is decided entirely by local government staff based solely on compliance with objective standards. There's no notice requirement to adjacent property owners. There's no community meeting. There's no public record of who knew what and when. A 40-unit apartment building can be approved on a school district lot in the middle of a residential neighborhood and the neighbors may not find out until the permits are posted on the fence. I've heard the research the sponsor site and I accept that research. The legislative declaration notes that more than 85% of public commenters in discretionary rezoning processes raise oppositional concerns. I understand why the sponsors looked at that number and concluded that the public participation is the problem. But I would ask them to consider a different interpretation. Maybe 85% opposition is what happens when communities feel that development is being done to them rather than with them. A single mandatory public hearing creates awareness. It creates accountability. It creates the kind of trust that makes the project easier, not harder. This bill applies to every jurisdiction in Colorado with population over 2,000. That means it will reshape communities from Steamboat Springs to Pueblo to the suburbs of Denver. Those communities did not have a meaningful role in drafting this. This amendment does not give them back everything they lost in that process, but it gives them a chair at the table and a voice. Transparency is not the enemy of housing. Exclusion is. Let's build homes and trust. I urge my colleagues to support Amendment L-35.

Thank you. Members, I rise in support of Amendment L-35. Some of us here in this chamber have been elected officials in their previous lives, and some will be elected officials in a different capacity in our next chapter. I am the former. I was elected to county government, and I have a healthy respect for what county commissioners, planning commissions who represent the county commissioners, town councils, city councils city planners go through when a development is suggested and sometimes it's an infill in an existing subdivision that's different than the cookie-gutter houses that have been built all around but it's the thing that I worry about with this bill and I'm going to be speaking on it a lot more later but I did want to get up and speak to this amendment that my good colleague from Greeley brought forward. From Platteville, sorry. Elected officials are trusted, hopefully, by the people that they serve. And that's important because if an elected official loses the trust of their constituents, things go south very quickly. People need to be able to understand and expect that they have a voice. The reality with most development is that master plans exist. land use is typically permitted and and also part of part of our society is the fact that if you own a property and you're going to develop it in a legally permissive way meaning according to what the master plan outlines, there's very little that the public can do about that. But it's very, very important that they have a voice, that they have the ability to stand up for their two or three minutes and tell the governing board how this is going to adversely or perhaps positively impact them. because when we take away the voice of the people, which is essentially what this bill contemplates, we lose the trust of the people that we serve. So that transparency is important. It's important. That's why master plans at a county level and a city level and a town level go through stakeholding and meeting after meeting after meeting. So it's a very public and transparent process. So folks know what to expect of that vacant lot that's a few doors down from their house. So this is a really, this is a very pertinent amendment. This is an important amendment, perhaps one of the most important amendments that we will see here today on House Bill 1001. This amendment gives citizens a voice in what happens in their community. And I urge and I vote on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the good Senator from... Black bill for bringing the amendment And we agree with you If you look at the pre bill the bottom of page 15 and around the bottom of page 16 it talks about applying and enforcing. It says nothing in this section prevents the jurisdiction from applying or enforcing infrastructure standards in local law during the administrative approval process, including standards related to utilities, transportation, public works, and codes. And then at the bottom of page 16 of the pre-amended bill, it talks about enacting and applying local law that requires notifying the public regarding a development application or soliciting and collecting feedback from residents in subject jurisdiction. So with that, we've already added an amendment to that, so I ask for a no vote on Amendment L3-5.

Bottom of 15 and the bottom of 16.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L35?

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you. Let me just read you another section of this bill. A subject on or after December 31, 2027, been subject to an administrative approval process. Administrative approval process is not going in front of the elected officials. It is not having a public hearing. A public hearing is what we're talking about here. And if you don't have a public hearing, you are effectively silencing the voice of citizens, of those that are most impacted. When you say that it shall, shall allow a residential development to be constructed. So go through an administrative process, a process that normally would have had a public hearing. I think somewhere in the ledge deck or somewhere where I was reading stuff at 2 o'clock in the morning, it talked about the reason for an administrative process, for an administrative shall approve. and it was because when you allow the neighborhood who is the most impacted and you have conditions and requirements within your public hearing process that says you have to hear from the public and you have to consider what they say and you have to talk about the compatibility of that process, the compatibility of the land use that is being proposed, of the new development that is being proposed, of the multifamily dwelling unit that is being proposed in a single-family unit subdivision, that you have to listen to and you have to take into termination, as an elected official, that compatibility issue. You have to listen to your constituents. So when you put into law that that process that normally went through a public hearing process, not just in front of the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of County Commissioners, but also... public hearing process that went in front of a planning commission, people of their peers, yes, it can be subjective. So when you keep listing very specifically in this bill that it has to be objective standards, you are effectively removing the voice of the people that are most impacted and not allowing for determination by elected officials in a public hearing that allows for the voice of the people who are the most impacted to have their voice and say why they are impacted. So the law, the bill reads that a subject to an administrative approval process, no public hearing there, no public hearing in an administrative approval process. And even if there was, it would be with staff, not the elected officials. What is being eliminated here for purpose of expediency to try and push through a development as quickly as possible is to eliminate the public from a public hearing process in front of their elected officials. That's what this bill does. And what you should really be looking at also in coordination with this is the rest of the law that isn't in this bill because they're not changing it. But it is in section 29-35-102, paragraph 2, subparagraph A, Roman numeral 2. Does not require and cannot be elevated to require a public hearing recommendation. Now, let me just take the time to find out where that would actually be in this bill if it was in here. 29.3, 29.35.103. This is going to take me a minute because literally I was reading this bill at 2 o'clock in the morning and it all started running together. But there is a section in here that talks about administrative process 29.35.103. I'm going to find it. Thank you. Yeah. That's all right. Page 3 after line 12. Okay, here we go. Definitions. Page 3. These are found in current law, section 29-35-103. And if you read there, 2A, under definitions, administrative approval process means a process, and now keep in mind, it is in statute already. Administrative approval process means, and this changes, a development application instead of proposal for a specified project is approved approved with conditions or denied by local government administrative staff based solely on its compliance with objective standards set forth in local laws and And then before you skip down to 2.5, which is in the bill, you have to read the next section of law, which is Roman numeral 2. So you see Roman numeral 1 is here that they made changes to in this bill. Roman number two, which is in law, says does not require and cannot be elevated to require a public hearing, a recommendation, or a decision by an elected or appointed body of the hearing officer or a hearing officer. So that elected body would be a board of county commissioners, a city council, or a town board. That appointed body is a planning commission. And in this bill, where the definition is, where we talk about a definition for an administrative approval process, says very clearly in law can have a hearing process, a public hearing process, which silences the voice of the public, which does not allow them to hold accountable the people that they elect to protect them. That's what it says. So I would ask for an aye vote on this amendment.

Is there any further discussion? Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you. Maybe we should follow through on that. So, the Board of County Commissioner in Weld County, after me, may have done that, but they don't have anything that says they can't elevate any requirement, any proposal, proposal any application for development in front of them to a public hearing. And in all likelihood, the things that they do by administrative process in most counties and most cities and towns are those things that normally do not require a public hearing that have already gone through a public hearing process And we probably have more discussion about this as we get going with some of the amendments other amendments I have for this bill So yes, there are times and I will give you one when a landowner wishes to do a recorded exemption record off two to five acres of their own property in the agricultural zone for a farm worker who is working on the farm or for a family member who is a member who is working on the farm as well and they wish to give them a parcel of land so that they can build a home on it and still work on the farm and still live close to the farm. Now that's an allowable use in the agricultural zone. It's listed in the guidance and in the subdivision regulations and so why should they have to go through a public hearing it's their property it's on their land they're dividing it off to keep the farm active and keep the farm going so yes it's a single family dwelling and they've allowed for it to be an administrative process because one it's compatible with the surrounding neighbors it's consistent with the intent of the zone district it's consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan shall I go on makes perfect sense makes perfect sense that you would allow that to be an administrative process because not only do they already meet all of the objective standards and conditions that might be put on that permit that recorded exemption but they also meet these subjective ones You know, the ones where you talk to your neighbor, the ones where you're compatible and consistent with a comprehensive plan that has gone through a horrendous, long public comment period. so again asking to have the voices heard of those that are the most impacted because instead you want to try and put a multi-family dwelling unit in what was a single-family dwelling subdivision i think makes perfect sense so while i appreciate the amendment that came up in committee it doesn't get us where we need to go so i ask for an aye vote on this amendment

Senator Exum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Compatibility has been used to discriminate for decades. Compatibility means shutting out people in communities and denying things like multifamily. So we ask for a no vote on Amendment 035.

Thank you. There's an amendment at the desk.

Amendment L42.

Is there any discussion on amendment L42? Senator Kirkmeyer.

Senator Pelton.

Senator Frizzell.

Senator Bright.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-42? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Amendment L-42. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. No. The noes have it, and the amendment is lost. To the bill, Senator Kirkmeyer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L043. Is there any discussion? Senator Kirkmeyer.

Senator Gonzalez.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Again, just for clarification on L043, I understand that school districts develop on their property, and they develop schools and facilities that are related to schools. They don't develop, at this time, residential dwelling units. well if they are still considered school buildings and school property they don't have to go through the process they wouldn't have to go through an administrative approval process many school districts choose to and choose to work with local governments cities and counties but they don't have to and this is just ensuring that should they do a residential development on a property that was originally slighted for schools that they would have to follow the administrative approval process and make sure that they follow the objective codes just like any other residential developer that is what l043 is doing and I would ask for an aye vote is there any further discussion on amendment l43

Amendment L-44, Maine Reingrope's Bill, page 9, after line 8, insert C, a parcel that is within a platted subdivision.

Is there any discussion on Amendment L44? Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, so I do think this amendment is pretty easy, and... I mean, I don't know why we went to prove it, quite frankly. I think it's very clear and I think it follows vested rights and things that are already currently recorded and how it works. So what this amendment does is it adds to the definition of a parcel that is within a platted subdivision. I'm sorry, that adds to the definition of an exempt parcel. And it would add a parcel that is within a platted subdivision, that they would be exempt. So here's the importance of this. a parcel that is part of a platelet subdivision like a specific lot tract or plot of land created by a recorded map that has been approved by local authorities and is filed in public records in all likelihood it probably went through a public hearing process got their approval went through and they record it so they record this plat and on this plat even in regular family in single-family dwellings subdivisions they will have plots of land because there are requirements there are things that local governments cities and counties do with school districts in particular let's say for example you know in we can either pay you a fee to the school district to help build future schools are we can dedicate land so there are a lot of subdivisions throughout the state of Colorado where they went through and they dedicated land they may have dedicated five acres they may have dedicated ten acres but they would have platted it they have put it on the plat and put it in a legal document and recorded it and they said we set aside in this subdivision we're setting aside these these five acres let's just say it's five acres for an elementary school because we know our subdivision of you know 1500 homes is going to impact the school district they're going to need property they're going to need to build a school and even in some of the more recent ones I mean it used to be they might just give them a fee or just give them give them some money and say put that in a fund it was never enough to build the school then they started doing this where they would give them the land they can do one or the other. And in recent, some of the recent developments that occurred that I'm aware of, you know, developers even go so far as saying, we're going to help you put in the infrastructure and different things in place to have that school there. Because, you know, in a single family dwelling unit subdivision, having an elementary school present where kids get to walk to school is a big deal and it's an amenity and it helps them sell homes. So again, it's a platted subdivision. It is put into place. It's been recorded. The parcels are defined by a legal description, references the recorded plat, and it's marked on the plat what it's to be used for. Now there are not only things like that marked on these plats, but a lot of times in subdivisions I mean going all the way back I mean very long years I mean almost every subdivision they may put a park in that subdivision or open space or common areas all sorts of things that are five ten acres of the subdivision I mean they'll put in these great open space areas especially in areas that they're trying to do drainage in anyways so they do like a multi-use with it but they put in extra land Again it an amenity to selling homes in that subdivision The same thing happens in mixed development areas commercial areas and even industrial areas where they'll set aside open space because there might have been requirements that said they had to have so much open land within the development, regardless of what it is. So what this is saying is that those parcels with a platted subdivision would be exempt. They would fall underneath the exemption definition that is within the bill. That's qualifying property. that starts on page 9 of the amended bill, pre-amended bill. Exempt parcel means, and then there's a whole list, a parcel that is not served by domestic water, that is served by a well, served by a septic tank. Those must have come from counties. That amendment, or some of those comments, A parcel of residential land use is prevented or limited by state regulation. I think maybe that one's close, but this isn't necessarily a deed restriction. This isn't necessarily a state regulation. It is essentially a parcel of land that is platted in a subdivision and has been recorded. It is a legal document. To change the legal document, you have to go through a replatting. You can't just go through an administrative process. And you would be changing a legal document that is duly recorded. The other thing about these legal documents, Platt-It subdivisions that have been recorded in the clerk, is they vest people's rights. They are legal entitlements that are absolute. They're fixed, and they are protected by law. So this is not a regulation. As it says in B on page 10 of the pre-amended bill, that a parcel where residential use is prevented or limited by state regulation or even federal regulation, and there wouldn't have been a deed restriction. It would have been in the plaiting of this property when it went through the land use process to get plaited in the first place. So it's being taken away or impaired by subsequent changes in legislation without the owner's consent or due process. every land owner within that planet subdivision needs to give consent or there needs to be due process. Due process is not through an administrative process. So I am asking for that we approve L044, which simply adds an additional definition to an exempt parcel for a parcel that is within a platted subdivision. I ask for an aye vote. Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I stand in great support of Amendment 43 to House Bill 1001. So, members, this just makes sense. Am I on the right? 43, right? 44 Sorry I was looking at 43 I meant 44 I have it here somewhere I stand in support of Amendment 44 to House Bill 1001. This makes a lot of sense because a subdivision is a legal document. It's a document on which people have purchased their homes. it creates expectations of amenities and sure sometimes a school site is included that happens tons in douglas county the school district has lots of parcels especially with as many subdivisions have been created over the last 40 years in douglas county that was part of the requirement is that, hey, you have to dedicate some land to build a school. Sometimes schools aren't built on those sites, though. And sometimes the sites are through the HOA turned into a park or a pool or something else. Open space. but it's a it's a promise and we've already kind of we've spent a lot of time talking about public comment and the importance of public comment today and that's really important to this conversation as well because can you change a subdivision sure you can you can it happens all the time You can replat. You can replat a parcel. But it has to go through the process. So that's why this particular amendment is incredibly important. It's saying that an exempt parcel includes parcels that are within a platted subdivision. That's all it does. Because if you develop a parcel in a platted subdivision in a way different than originally intended, again, going back to, say, it's a parcel that was dedicated as part of the subdivision process to the school district, and suddenly that parcel is not going to be a school. It's going to be condominiums. Okay, oh, that's right, we don't do those. It's going to be apartments or townhouses. We don't really do those either, but I like to live in hope. That's a change, and that change is important to the people who live in that subdivision. That change is important legally. And the process must be observed. You can't just go and change the subdivision without going through the process. That's why this Amendment 44 is important. That's why we need to adopt it. Please vote yes on 44.

Madam Chair. Actually it doesn't. Doesn't help thread the needle. We're not I'm not trying to thread a needle here. I agreed with the amendment that came from the good senator from Thornton because it said they get to apply and enforce for subdivision regulations. Fantastic. I'm talking about a parcel should be exempted after they've applied their subdivision regulations. I mean, that does not fix this issue. So they've applied their subdivision regulations and the The plan has been platted and it's been recorded and on the plat there are legal entitlements that are absolute, fixed and protected by law that cannot be taken away or impaired by subsequent changes in legislation. Subdivision regulations are legislation. I'm talking about a document that is duly recorded and is a legal instrument that says on the plat. It'll have a map. It'll show all the plots that are supposed to be for, I'm just going to use a regular subdivision, that are in that subdivision that are going to be for houses. It'll show where the roads are going to be. It'll show where all the easements are going to be. It will show where the open space is going to be, where the parks are going to be, and where that five-acre lot, it'll say school on it. that will be recorded. It is a legal document that is recorded that for anyone who buys into that subdivision and owns a piece of it has to abide by that plat that has been duly recorded. They have to abide by it. If they Wish to make changes to that plat. They have to go through a process that requires replatting. That requires a public hearing that requires the board of county commissioners or the town board or the city council to approve. everyone who owns property in that subdivision has what is called a vested right it is a property right but it is vested and it is vested because of the legal document because of the recording the right is vested it cannot just be changed by a legislative act not one here and not one in the local government subdivision regulations are adopted by ordinance. They are considered regulations. You can't change it. They're considered, it's done through a legislative process. Subdivision regulations are adopted through an ordinance, which is a legislative process. It's a legislative act of the city council. You cannot take away someone's vested right. You cannot impair it by subsequent changes in legislation. So while I appreciate what the good Senator from Thornton said, but his amendment talked about applying and enforcing subdivision regulations. That is legislation at the local level. You cannot change or take away vested rights. So that is why I asked for an amendment for an exempt parcel would be a parcel that is within a platted subdivision, a legal document, something that everyone counts on, but at the same time, if they own property in that subdivision, they have a vested right and they have a right to due process before that is changed. This, most certainly, if this happens, this bill goes through without this change, there will be a lawsuit. And I thought the goal of the bill was to expedite development, not hold it up. There will be lawsuits. It will probably be a class action type lawsuit, but there will be lawsuits with regard to this. People, I have been in hearings, land use hearings, for 20 years. People who are impacted, whether they perceive it or they are, in a negative way, get really angry with their government when they do things to change things through an administrative process and they don't get to know about it. And they come back later and they can either do a lawsuit, they might do a lawsuit, which they would win. Then they'll just simply recall their local government elected officials for allowing this to happen even though it wasn't their fault. So, I'm asking this to me this is a clarification. This is an important amendment. It not technical but it clear We shouldn be passing laws that we know will drive other lawsuits But at the same time these are vested rights It's a legal document. And I'm just asking for in L044 that an exempt parcel would be a parcel that is within a platted subdivision. So that we don't mess everything up and get everybody ticked off and think that they can't trust their government.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to speak on Amendment 44. I think one of the things we may be thinking about and not considering is that with all the new subdivisions that are being built around the state of Colorado, particularly in my district, plats are all that people have to make decisions because there may be no houses in that subdivision yet, so you and your family decide we're thinking about building here. The first thing you want to look at is the plat, so that they can make decisions about what street they might want to be on, what they would like as a neighbor, and whether or not there's going to be a school in it. It's been mentioned a number of times. it helps people make decisions about where they're going to spend their future and if we decide that we can say well it doesn't really matter how you decided because of the information that was required on the plat at the time you bought your lot we're going to just change that because we've decided that would be better for a different part of the community I could not do that on a farm plant I couldn't do that in my community and say I've changed my mind it's not going to be a school anymore it's going to be a zoo or it's going to be something completely that doesn't fit that needs to be noticed to the people that made those decisions and now this is a neighborhood that's grown up it's got the houses, the yards, the trees the dogs and the kids but all of a sudden multi-families are being built in that subdivision on ground they thought was going to be a school at some time with no notice. In an era where we talk about transparency all the time we talk about being more transparent now a bill saying well we don't need to be transparent about this because we can make an administrative decision and change every decision that's been made in that neighborhood. It just doesn't seem right. This is a very small change in the bill that's being presented. I think it does a lot of things that we may not think about in the future, but it does give opportunities and awareness to people that have made their life's decisions about what they saw on a legal document that was recorded in their courthouse that drove the development of that subdivision. So a platted lot, if you're going to change the purpose of it, the use of it, those kind of things, in any other issue, it would go to the public. Yet we've decided this is the number one priority for the state of Colorado. is it the number one priority for the state of Colorado because those people are citizens of Colorado too Let give them the opportunity to at least see and know and voice their concerns Just go through the replat Anyway, please vote yes on 44.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of L-044. it does actually create a higher level of certainty and excluding a parcel that's within a platted subdivision. I can actually speak to a real-world circumstance within my district within the last four years where a platted subdivision, a local government entity had purchased some of the parcels within a platted subdivision and in a well-meaning effort to create more affordable workforce housing, circumvented the process and public engagement and violated that vested property rights in the other owners within the approved subdivision. The owners challenged that to district court. The district court agreed with the homeowners and the existing landowners within the subdivision to say you can't just do this haphazardly. You have to think about going back through the whole public process again. If you think you want to try to change the character and the makeup of the subdivision, I think this amendment adds very clear definition that those parcels within a platted subdivision indeed need to be counted as an exempt parcel. keep us just add clarity and definition to what we're trying to accomplish within this bill and not set us up for legal challenges going forward because inevitably I think that's probably where we end up which is not a good place to be. I rise in support of L044.

To the bill, Senator Rich. Thank you, Madam Chair. And we'll just continue on here with...

Amendment L30, amend re-engross bill page 14.

Thank you. Is there further discussion on L030? Senator Gonzalez.

Is there further discussion on L030? Seeing none, the question before it is the adoption of L030. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. L030 fails. To the bill.

Mr. Schauffler, can you please read L036?

Senator Rich. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L036 to House Bill 1001. That's the proper motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, this amendment would ensure that housing developments that are created under this bill are offered at affordable rental rates. While this bill has been marketed as a housing affordability measure, there is currently no requirement for new developments to be listed at affordable rental rates. Luckily, this amendment would prohibit housing units from exceeding 80% of the median rental rate within a development's respective jurisdiction. Through this reasonable cap, this amendment will ensure that everyday Coloradans, rather than profit-driven housing developers, will reap the benefits of affordable housing. I thought it was interesting that this was not even mentioned in this bill, but I think it's a good amendment and one that should be considered, and I ask for an aye vote.

Senator Fizell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, Chair. Okay. So confusing. I'm so sorry. I'm blonde. So I rise in support of this amendment. I, this amendment is L036, and I think that this is really important because it's important to understand, and I'm just going to go back to the amendment L037 that was passed earlier by the bill sponsors that tightened up the definition of what a qualifying entity is and qualifying properties so I'm just let's revisit that quickly so qualifying entity means a school district as defined I won't read all that school district a state college or university board of cooperative services housing authority local or regional transit district nonprofit organization nonprofit organization. So all of these folks, all these entities have something in common generally, although I think the Board of Cooperative Services may not, but generally speaking, these qualifying entities are tax exempt for property tax purposes. And why is that important, you're asking? I know that question is looming in your mind. Why is that important? Well, presumably, these entities can build housing on their already property tax-exempt land and offer rental units at a reduced rate simply by virtue of not having to pay property tax. so does this happen all the time in practice one would think so because this happens today where we have to see this all the time where you have housing authorities who enter into and you've heard me talk about this but just in case you missed that particular conversation housing authorities are property tax exempt entities and all they have to do is enter into partnership with a for-profit entity for the grand sum of $1, and that whole project becomes exempt from property taxes. So why is that important? Because, presumably, they are all going to be offering units at a reduced rate because they don't have to pay property tax. It's a great system. The reality is not all of the units are at a reduced rate. Not all of them. So I don't think there's anything wrong, and this is why I support this excellent amendment, because we need to make sure that if you're actually doing what you say you're going to do, you're offering units at a reduced rate for workforce housing. That's what we're doing. And there's nothing wrong with putting those developers' feet to the fire, holding them accountable, making sure that what they doing is what they say they doing Let be transparent and let make sure that these folks are accountable Senator Kirkmeyer Thank you Madam Chair Well, I think we should vote for this one. And I'm a little bit disappointed because I think the Good Center from Grand Junction is trying to upstage me with an even better I love renters amendment. remember a couple of years ago on a bill i think oh it was was it that no on hh bill one of those one of those bills that was going through and i asked for an amendment that really looked at how are we helping renters that if that's what you're supposed to be doing what are we what are we doing here so had an amendment and uh it effectively died in the senate by one vote. So a lot of you voted against it. But then it went over to the House. They revised it. They didn't want to call it the Kirkmeyer's I Love Renter Amendment, so they revised it and put it on in the House. So pretty amazing. But here we have the good senator from Grand Junction who's come up with what appears to be a pretty darn good amendment, and I'm going to call it from now on the good senator from Grand Junction the I Love Renter's Amendment, and you all should vote for it.

Senator Henriksen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in opposition to the proposed rent control. the problem is new developments are more costly than existing developments in many ways and this amendment exacerbates a chicken or the egg problem that we have or a lack of housing supply is a huge part of why housing costs are so high and if we limit the ability to to increase supply then we we still don't have we still have excessive demand and that drives up the costs on all of the existing properties that we already have this is um this is what we refer to as the missing middle problem in housing so while I think that there could be developments that could absolutely be at or below media now this amendment restricts to below 80% of median housing costs and it isn't really well defined is that per the unit of relative or per the the bedrooms of the relative unit is it you know 80% of what the median is for one bedroom for each one bedroom unit is the 80% of the median for two bedrooms for is it just 80% of what the median rent is that's not actually defined at all in this amendment but the broader policy itself is problematic because it attacks again the supply problem which is the root of the problem we're trying to address

Senator Carson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll have an amendment here shortly, but I'd like to make a few comments on the bill. So the issues I have with this bill are you know relate to I think a lot of folks in our state today and in our country are frustrated with how government works because they don really know who makes the decisions that are affecting them what they advocating for I know I get a lot of correspondence on federal issues, and I tell people, well, you know, that's really not something we do in the state government. But what this bill is going to do is really impact on folks' relationship with their local government. And I think it's going to be frustrating to folks when they find out that a lot of the decisions now and a lot of the requirements are going to be driven really at the state level by the state legislature. And we seem to vote on a fair number of bills around here that are marketed as, you know, improving the affordability of housing or providing more affordable housing for folks. And it doesn't seem to be having much of an impact because I think the best way to get more affordable housing is to let the marketplace work. let government get out of the way let the developments that people are interested in developing and purchasing let that work and I think that's the best way to cut through all these regulations and rules and mandates and taxes and let's really get more affordable housing out there I don't think this bill is the way to do it I've heard there's been 40 amendments made quite a few amendments made to the bill, and quite frankly, I think that's a reflection of maybe the bill is not such a great idea in the first place, because if you've got to appease all the different interest groups that are worried about being impacted by a piece of legislation like this, maybe we ought to just step aside and let our local governments and the marketplace work. I'm going to offer an amendment here now, and I'll give this to the...

Mr. Schaplu, you please read L034. Amendment L34, men ring gross bill page 12.

That's the proper motion. Please tell us about it.

Thank you. Further discussion?

Is there further discussion on L-034?

Thank you. Further discussion on L034? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L034. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. No. The no's have it. L-0-3-4 fails.

There is an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment L032 to House Bill 1001.

Thank you. I'd love to tell us about it. This is actually a really simple amendment. All it does is it inserts a paragraph that discusses infrastructure impact, and this is what it says. Before allowing construction of a residential development on a qualifying property through an administrative approval process pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, a subject jurisdiction shall ensure that an infrastructure impact assessment is conducted to evaluate the capacity of roads, utilities, and emergency services that serve the qualifying property. This is a really important amendment, members. And I have countless examples. Okay, I'll give you one example that happened in the town of Parker. The town of Parker has an urban renewal authority and they within that authority boundary one of the plan areas built a memory care facility It was quite large. And did not really recognize the impact to emergency services of this facility. And they were extraordinary. You can imagine it's a memory care facility, so you have first responders, your EMTs, they're there multiple times a day. And the thing that was really kind of important about that particular facility and the impact on the fire protection district is that because this is in an urban renewal authority plan area, they were being reimbursed for their services exactly zero dollars. because all of the property tax dollars that they would ordinarily get were being diverted to the Urban Renewal Authority and the developer of the property. That's one example of unintended consequences when we're talking about infrastructure needs. Another example would be there's been several apartment complexes built within this same plan area. Again, no property tax dollars going to the school district for children who are being educated there. And this is a little different, but it's really very, very similar. Because the impact on infrastructure of these facilities is extraordinary. whether you're talking about emergency services, educating children, or electricity. We've had lots of conversation about transit-oriented developments in the last several years in this building. and what happens if you don't have the electricity capacity to build a high-rise or a low-rise next to a train line, but by golly, the state's demanding that you do it or else. This idea of understanding utility and transportation and emergency services capacity is something that we must consider. We must consider it in this building. It's really, really important. Because what we are doing here is mandating to local governments that you need to suck it up and do what we say, even if it's not really possible. I hear in my neighborhood a lot, because we have houses still being built, it's like, oh my gosh, the water pressure keeps going down, because they keep building more houses. They're not increasing the capacity of the lines. What if you are in a subdivision, and they build an apartment building next to it that is on the same system that you are and that system is not built for that capacity We hear about it all the time The idea of retrofitting some of these empty office buildings here in downtown and there a lot of them We talk about retrofitting it. Oh, my gosh, it's a great idea. We should reuse those structures. Well, you know what? It's really, really, really hard. And you know why? Because they lack the infrastructure. They're built for office buildings. They don't have the water and sanitation and electrical capacity for 200 apartments or 100 apartments. They just don't. And that's why it's so darn expensive to retrofit those buildings. So before we inflict more pain on local governments, let's at least let them look at this. let's at least let them understand the impacts to services and to citizens. This is a common sense amendment. It's a common sense amendment that acknowledges that large residential projects, they do significantly impact roads. They do impact water systems. They do impact emergency services. And they do impact utilities. And all of those things require proper planning. So I ask for your aye vote on Amendment 32. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of Amendment L-32 to House Bill 1001. I guess the reason is simple. Anyone who has built a house knows that you pour the foundation before you raise the walls. Today I'm asking this chamber to apply that same principle to public policy via Amendment L-32. House Bill 1001 requires subject jurisdictions to approve qualifying residential developments through an administrative process with no requirements to first assess whether the infrastructure serving that development can actually support it. No road capacity analysis, no water or sewer availability confirmation beyond the basic provider statements on page 16 of the bill. No evaluation of emergency service response times. No stormwater remodeling. Just approval based on whether the application meets the objective zoning standards, regardless of what the surrounding infrastructure can bear. I'd like to be clear about the practical consequence of that emission. A 60-unit apartment building generates roughly 400 vehicle trips per day. If it's built on a school district property at the edge of a small town with a two-lane access road and a volunteer fire department, that building may be perfectly compliant with every standard this bill requires, but it's still a genuine public safety concern from the day that it opens. This bill does allow jurisdictions to apply and enforce infrastructure standards during the administrative process, but that provision only helps communities that already have those standards written into their codes For the jurisdictions that do not the smaller communities that are most affected by this bill 2 threshold there nothing to apply This amendment fills that gap with the straightforward requirements. Before approval, assess whether the roads and utilities and emergency services that can support what is being built. That's not an obstacle to housing. It's the minimum due diligence any responsible government owes to the people who already live in a community before it fundamentally changes it. I would urge my colleagues to support amendment L32 to House Bill 1001 on this premise.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the comments. I would ask for a no vote on amendment L032. This doesn't, the bill doesn't prevent this from happening, and L32 would mandate this in certain instances and would otherwise not be required today. and would also add to the cost of housing. So we ask for a no vote on L32. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm down to support Amendment 32, and I just wanted to bring a couple of things to your attention in regards to this. In the communities that I represent over on the Western Slope, But just in a smaller example, when we passed ADUs in the backyards of these residential communities, I don't think anyone was thinking about the size and service of the sewer and water that was developed to maintain those subdivisions, those city blocks in my community. and after a number of these units started being paid built and paid for the city ended up having to go down through the middle of the street putting in new sewer lines and new water lines in order to meet the capacity requirements from these new developments the same thing is going to be true in regards to older subdivisions or older sections of the community if we bring in multiple units onto that existing service, it's going to be disruptive. It seems to me that we as a community would be money ahead, effort ahead, and the upset in people's lives if we did these assessments to figure out what those capacities are in the streets and in the communities that we're talking about building multiple family developments. Because if you're not thinking about that, it's one of those things that ends up catching up with you and having to retrofit is something that nobody is addressing, those costs. It seems to me that if the developer decided that they wanted to build in these units, build the units in these qualified areas, they would be in a much better position if they to say to the city government that those lines need to be retrofitted. They need to be prepared for the extra load and the extra capacities that this development is going to require. Because if it's not, then the costs are going to be borne by the community as a whole rather than the developer at the time they've decided they wanted to build multiple units in this community. This is just good governance in trying to figure out what are the capacities of these infrastructures. I'm not talking about the police and the fire and all of those things. I'm talking about every day, the water supply, the sewer capacities. We should know. I think we need to know in order for the people of the community to not end up bearing the costs of the development of multiple units in areas that were not designed for that kind of development. I would ask for a yes vote on Amendment 32. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is another attempt to have one-size-fits-all policy in the state around housing. all the way from when I was a county commissioner to my time here at the Capitol I've seen how one size fits all does not work and is always a burden on rural Colorado because these ideas are born up here on the front range and they do not fit out there and Hartman is not a good place for an apartment building but with that Madam Chair There is an amendment in the desk.

Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L031.

Yeah, this, as I was speaking a little bit ago about the one size fits all, What this amendment would do would exempt counties of 50,000 or less from this requirement. Again, this is an urban issue that with this amendment would let this bill just address urban counties. Smaller counties operate with limited infrastructure, has been discussed earlier. fewer planning resources and unique geographic constraints. Our planning and zoning in my home county is one guy. We don't have the resources to handle big apartment building complexes coming in, nor will they fit. So I think this is a great amendment. I'd urge support for L031.

Thank you Madam Chair Yeah I want to support the Amendment 031 by our colleague our distinguished colleague from Cheyenne Wells You know, I think this is a good example of how we legislate so much just around the urban issues and the urban areas of this state. And I think our colleague has made an excellent point that this type of stuff really has no relevance out into the rural parts of this state. in the smaller communities, I think they can certainly make these kind of housing and planning and development decisions on their own without having to have the state government come in and mandate things and dictate, you know, all of their local government procedures and policies. And so I just wanted to come up and support the amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense and hope we'll support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to the Senate from Peltonville for bringing them in. But the bill itself provides substantial flexibility and contextual design standards based on similar housing and zoning in each community. Between the bill last year and this year, we've incorporated dozens of ideas to address specific concerns from many communities because we agree we don't want a one-size-fit-all. So I'd ask for a no vote on 31.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to support this amendment. The communities that I represent, the majority of them are under 50,000 people. and they're telling me that they really don't know how they're going to be able to accommodate some of the things that are being talked about in the bill in regards to it's awful urban-centric. We're not in that same vein in the communities that we're talking about in my district, and they've asked me to be a no vote, and this is one of the reasons. So please, please support this Amendment 31. Thank you.

Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my colleagues have brought up some very important points, and we're going to be seeing some significant issues, and with that, it's going to be significant costs. And with that, I have another amendment. There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Samora Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L003 to House Bill 1001.

033.

Although this bill is trying to reduce costs, housing costs, and once again, as one of my colleagues mentioned, we have high costs because of the increased regulations. We are number six, the most regulated state in the nation. Looks like we're trying to become number one. so this is going to have a huge impact and what this amendment is going to do is it's going to replace the bill's safety clause with the petition clause this amendment allows Coloradans the opportunity to challenge the bill through the petition process and this legislation as I mentioned significantly alters local land use authority and development standards across the state. Given the bill's broad implication for communities and property owners and local governments, voters should they must weigh in they must have that opportunity you know as far as the costs this this bill is going to create some significant costs I mean just look at the it's going to create administrative costs for local governments as they implement the new requirements and modify their existing land use codes. Cities and counties will likely need to update zoning ordinances, establish new administrative review procedures and train planning staff to evaluate projects that qualify under the the bill's criteria because projects must be processed administratively rather than through discretionary review. Planning departments may need to adjust staffing or internal processes to ensure compliance with the state law and smaller municipalities with limited planning staff could face a disproportionate administrative burden when adapting to the new regulatory framework. Housing development on publicly owned parcels may also increase pressure on local infrastructure systems. New residential developments create additional demand for water, sewer, storm water systems, roads, transit services, schools, and emergency response capacity. Because the bill restricts local government's ability to control density and other development standards on qualifying properties, some projects may exceed the level of development originally anticipated in local infrastructure plans. This could force municipalities or special districts to accelerate capital improvement projects or expand infrastructure sooner than planned increasing costs for local governments and taxpayers There's also indirect impacts on local property tax revenues, and many of the entities eligible to develop housing under the bill, including school districts, transit districts, and certain non-profits are tax-exempt organizations. If housing is developed on land owned by these entities, a portion of the property may remain exempt from property taxation, potentially limiting the expected increase in local tax revenues that would normally accompany new residential development. This could shift fiscal pressures onto surrounding taxpayers or reduce anticipated revenue growth for local governments and school districts. In looking at the non-monetary costs, one of the most significant impacts is the reduction of local government authority over land use decisions. Land use planning has historically been a core function of municipal and county governments in Colorado. By requiring local governments to approve certain housing developments administratively and limiting their ability to impose development standards, the bill represents a form of state preemptive over local zoning decisions. Local officials may have fewer tools available to respond to community concerns or to shape developmental patterns consistent with local priorities. This bill may also disrupt long-term community planning efforts. Many municipalities and counties rely on comprehensive plans, neighborhood plans, and growth management policies to guide development in a coordinated way. These plans often balance housing development with infrastructure capacity, environmental considerations, and community input. Because this bill requires administrative approval for qualifying development, some projects could move forward outside of the typical planning process that allows for public input and coordination with long-term developmental strategies. Neighborhood capability may also become a concern in some communities. Residents living near qualifying properties may experience changes in density, building height, traffic patterns, or parking demand that they feel were not adequately considered through the usual public review process. Since this bill restricts the ability of local governments to impose stricter standards on setbacks, parking, buffering, or landscaping, communities may have fewer options available to mitigate these potential impacts. Another non-monetary concern is the creation of uneven regulatory treatment between different property owners. The bill provides regulatory advantages to developments on land owned by certain nonprofit or public entities, while private landowners remain subject to traditional zoning restrictions and review process. This difference in regulatory treatment could create perception of unfairness in the development process, potentially distort housing development patterns. Also, this can devalue prices on homes, which would negatively impact the owners, their property rights. As also mentioned by my colleagues, this could bring about lawsuits, which would increase monetary costs, which the taxpayer will ultimately eat. So this bill makes significant changes to local land use in their authority by requiring certain housing developments to be approved through administrative processes under certain circumstances. While it's intended to increase housing availability, it does so by limiting the ability of the local communities to make planning decisions about development in their own jurisdictions. Local governments are responsible for balancing housing needs with infrastructure capacity, transportation planning, school capacity, and community input. When the state overrides those decisions, it can create unintended consequences for neighborhoods and local governments that must manage the impacts of new development. Policies that exempt to addressing housing shortages through government mandates often fail to address the underlying causes of housing costs. As I mentioned, regulatory burdens were the sixth most regulated state in the nation. In some cases, these mandates can create tension between state authority and local control while shifting infrastructure costs onto local taxpayers. And while increasing housing supply is an important goal, we should pursue solutions that respect the local decision-making and address regulatory barriers rather than imposing top-down requirements. We have to remember what is the role of government. What is our role? we must protect the rights of we the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which includes property rights and remember these rights as my colleague from Brighton mentioned vested rights we cannot take those away That's why we need to have the safety clause. We need to replace such that the public, we the people, can petition and retain its constitutional rights to challenge the law if they choose. I urge an aye vote on L033.

L33 replaces the safety clause with the petition clause I ask for a no vote Thank you.

I move the committee rise and report. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has had a bill under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?

Thank you. I move the report.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title, S-001 to HB-1001. Amendment S-001.

Senator Kirgmeier, if you wouldn't mind, we have...

We have a member that I did not have a chance to excuse. We need to excuse them for this vote. Could you please withdraw your motion and then we'll have to just... You don't have to give all those comments again. But if you would please withdraw your motion for the adoption of S-001, I'd appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. President. I withdraw my motion of S-001.

And then also Senator Kipp, would she have to withdraw her motion because we're in a motion for the Committee of the Whole Report adoption?

I withdraw the motion for the Committee of the Whole Report to be adopted.

No. No.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the adoption of the Committee of the Whole Report.

Amendment S-001.

Thank you.

I must be short. I did have my hand up.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move S-001.

I am going to ask for an aye vote, but I'm just going to say it one more time. But I'll be a little bit more brief. But this is important, because eliminating a public hearing, It a loss of transparency and trust It diminishes public oversight It can lead to the perception of closed deals and decreased trust in government. It reduces our democratic accountability. I've heard it down here several times about democracy. A public hearing is the opportunity for the people who are most impacted to have their voice heard. We're missing an opportunity. When we cut the public out of what should be a public hearing process, we are missing an opportunity to guarantee trust, accountability, and transparency, and democracy. I would ask for an aye vote on S-001. Let's put the public back into this process. Let's let them have their voice. They deserve it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the conversation that we had about this in the second reading when we were debating the policy itself. I will again reiterate my request for a no vote because the law already allows for public input into the objective standards that govern the administrative review process and housing development. And what is not allowed is for arbitrary or inconsistent standards that treat each project differently and unpredictably. And we did address this as the good Senator from Broomfield spoke to and alluded to it during the original committee process. And for that reason, I urge a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill, should it become law, would not allow for a public hearing process. In the definition under administrative process, under the definition on page 3 of the bill, administrative approval process, there's a 2A I that talks about what an administrative approval process is. In the current law, there is a double I that says for an administrative approval process, it does not require and cannot be elevated to require a public hearing, a recommendation or a decision by an elected or appointed body or a hearing officer. The law is clear. So this bill, which pushes forward an administrative approval process, which is a mandate, it shall, these land use developments shall go through an administrative approval process, not a process in front of an elected body or even an appointed body. You know, planning commission, town board, city council, board of county commissioners. It would just go through an approval process, and it does not require a public hearing, and you can't even elevate it. The board couldn't say, gosh, there's a lot going on with that, and we want to have a public hearing on it, because, I don't know, we got a gazillion emails or a gazillion comments. They could not elevate it to a public hearing process. That is what's in current law. further this bill does not say that there can be a public hearing process it's the exact opposite this bill says that first of all that it is a requirement requirement to go through an administrative process in front of staff, not in front of a local government. This bill had an amendment put on it, which was a good try. Enacting or applying a local law that requires notifying the public. Notifying the public is not the same as holding a public hearing. It is only notifying the public about a development application. I got news for you. They have to do that anyways. So just putting it again in duplication in the law doesn't make it a public hearing. They just have to notify the public regarding a development application. And then, yeah, they say, yeah, you can give us comments. To the administrative staff, that is not a public hearing. They do not have the opportunity to speak to their elected officials. The fact that we're doing an administrative process that doesn't take into consideration Subjective matters, which are compatibility with the comprehensive plan, which are compatibility with the existing surrounding neighborhood, and that we don't give that existing surrounding neighborhood the opportunity to voice any of their issues that they may have, such as you are changing the definition, you are changing what my neighborhood looks like dramatically, and I will be impacted. by increased traffic. I will be impacted by issues with my water or my sanitation district. I may be impacted by more crime. Who knows? They have all sorts of things that they want to bring up. Silencing the voice of the people who are most impacted and not giving them the opportunity of transparency, holding their elected officials accountable, and democracy, their voice, is wrong. This amendment, S-001, makes sure that we put the public back into what is an extremely public process. So I ask for an aye vote on S-001.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move amendment S002 To the amendment Thank you I tried to run this amendment while we were in discussion on the bill to exempt counties 50 or less from this bill Again, one size fits all policy pushed down from the city onto our country folks. That does not fit. I'm down here constantly trying to protect rural Colorado from this building in the front range, and here is another attempt at me trying to protect them. So please, I ask for your yes vote on 002.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm bummed. I thought this was going to be the Republican rent control amendment. Still ask for a no vote.

Kirkmeyer.

Rich.

Liston. Pelton R.

Carson.

With a vote of 24 ayes, 10 no, 0, 0, 0, 1, excuse, the community of the whole report is adopted. House Bill 1001 is amended, passed, second meeting, order revised, passed, and counted, third meeting, and final passage. Senate Bill 40, laid over until 312, 2026, retaining its place on the calendar. Consideration of resolutions. Mr. Schauffler, please, you do the title of H.J.R. 1020. House Joint Resolution 1020 by Representatives Rickson, Espinosa, and Senator Marshman and Wallace concerning the designation of March 8, 2026 as International Women's Day in Colorado and in connection therewith, acknowledging the countless contributions of women of men in history

Motion is layover to H.A.R. 1020 to Friday, March 13th, 2026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. You guys have it. H.A.R. 1020 will layover until Friday, March 13th, 2026. Consideration of House amendments to Senate bills. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 1. Senate Bill 1 by Senators Roberts and Bridges and Representative Basnicker and Richardson concerning housing and in connection therewith authorizing a board of county commissioners to appropriate money to support specified types of housing and making the middle income housing tax credit available to transferees who do not own an interest in a qualified development Senator Roberts Thank you Mr President I move that the Senate concur with House amendments to Senate Bill 1 Senator Roberts, please tell us why we are giving in to the lower chamber.

Seeing none. The motion is that the Senate can curb with the House amendments to Senate Bill 1. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, and 1 excused, that motion is adopted. Senator Roberts.

The motion is to repassage Senate Bill 1. Are there any no votes? What? Senators, Frizzell, Senate Bill 1, no votes on repassage of Senate Bill 1. All right. Rich, Baisley, Liston, Zamora Wilson, Pelton R., Carson. Did you? Carson. Please mark Senator Frizzell as a yes on the repassage of Senate Bill 1. Further no votes? Seeing none with a vote of 28 ayes, 6 no, 0 absent, 1 excuse. Senate Bill 001 is repassed. Co-sponsors. For repassage, you are already on there. Senate Bill 1. All right.

The motion is to lay over the Governor's Appointment Consent Calendar Thursday, March 12, 2026. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. What? The ayes have it. Governor's Appointment Consent Calendar will lay over until Thursday, March 12, 2026. Message from the House. The House is adopted and returns herewith. Senate Joint Resolution 1. The House is passed on third reading and transmitted to the Revisor of Statutes, House Bill 1191. House is passed on third reading and transmitted to the Reviser of Statutes House Bill 1089. House Bill 1095, House Bill 1258, and House Bill 1090. Amended as printed in House Journal March 10th 2026. House is passed on third reading and returns herewith. Senate Bill 34 and Senate Bill 64. House is passed on third reading and transmitted to the Reviser of Statutes Senate Bill 13. Amended as printed in House Journal March 10th 2026. And amended on third reading as printed in House Journal March 11th 2026. Message from the Reviser. We hear with transmit without comment. House Bill 1191. without comment as amended House Bill 1089, 1090, 1095, and 1258 without comment as amended Senate Bill 13. Introduction of resolutions. Mr. Schauffler, please do the title of SJR 017. Senate Joint Resolution 017 by Senators Frizzell and Weisman and Representatives Brooks and Wilford concerning the reappointment of Carrie L. Hunter to the position of State Auditor. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is layover SJR 017 to Monday, March 16, 2026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. SJR 017 layover until Monday, March 16, 2026. Introduction of bills Senate Bill 137 by Senators Coleman and Simpson and Representatives McCluskey and Caldwell concerning measures to reduce administrative burdens and in connection therewith making changes to the mandatory review of department rules by each principal department and clarifying the Attorney General's scope of authority related to litigation discovery. Finance. Senate Bill 138 by Senators Doherty and Mullica and Representatives Stuart Kaye. Concerning measures to reduce the administrative burden on the health care system. Health and Human Services. House Bill 1081 by Representatives Camacho and Duran and Senator Roberts. Concerning measures to optimize Colorado's electric transmission system. Transportation and energy. House Bill 1084 by Representative Espinosa and Camacho and Senators Weissman and Lindstedt. Concerning voter transparency requirements to expand information about the funding of initiated statewide ballot measures and in connection therewith requiring the ballot title and abstract of the fiscal impact statement for certain initiated statewide ballot measures to identify the main areas of state expenditures that would be affected by the measure. That's how it's done. State veteran military affairs. House Bill 1120 by Representatives Martinez and Velasco and Senators Simpson and Kipp. concerning the implementation of the recommendations of the Mobile Home Taxation Tax Force and in connection therewith, modifying the process for the collection of delinquent property taxes to align with real property tax lien sale and public auction procedures, extending the redemption period for mobile homeowners and clarifying that a mobile homeowner under legal disability is entitled to an extended redemption period of up to nine years. Finance. House Bill 1228 by Representative Stuart R. and Foray and Senator Danielson concerning measures to increase access to licensure as a marriage and family therapist. Business, labor, and technology. The President has signed House Bill 1027, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169. That's a lot of bills to sign. Announcements.

Very good, very good. Senator Danielson.

Thank you Mr. President. Senate Education Committee will be hearing today at 1 30 and SCR 357. We have two bills, Senate Bill 125 and Senate Bill 126. Very good. Senator Cutter, Cutter. Thank

Very good. Senator Mobile.

Thank you Mr. President.

I hope you can join Mothers Against Drunk Driving in AAA Colorado for coffee and donuts in the basement tomorrow, March 12th, starting at 8 a.m. Come here from constituents and volunteers about the work they're doing to make our roads safer. Thanks. Thank you.

Very good. Further announcements. There is another announcement from the great Senator from Mullicaville.

Mr. Majority Leader.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye Polls no All right The ayes have it The Senate will adjourn until 9 a on Thursday March 12 2026