March 25, 2026 · Local Government & Housing · 4,953 words · 16 speakers · 127 segments
Senate, local government, housing committee will come to order. Ms. Alanzaro, please call. Senators Baisley?
Present.
Ball?
Here.
Lindstedt?
Liston?
Rich?
Here.
Snyder?
Here.
Mr. Chair?
Good morning. We have two bills this morning, House Bill 1095 and House Bill 1257, and we'll start with 1095.
and Senator Lindstedt has received permission from Senator Pelton to go along. By myself.
All right. Tell us about 1095.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1095 would require newspapers to publish public notices online, either on a news organization's website or to provide a link to the full text of the notice. The bill would require that those notices are not behind a paywall. You know, being from local government and seeing so many people that rely on these notices, I think it's only fair that they are accessible to the public when they're needed. So the intent of the bill is just to make it more accessible for people to find these notices because more and more Coloradans use digital media as opposed to print media. So pretty simple bill. We have an amendment. some of the stakeholders requested that would require the public notices, the list of websites and newspapers that would be applicable under this bill to be identified by county on a website. So we will add that, and that should get everyone to a good place. I know we've had this discussion on this issue over the years, but I think we're finally in a place where people can receive notices timely and that it makes sense. So I ask for an aye vote, and my good friend, Senator Pelton, wishes he could be here.
Okay. Thank you, Senator Lindstedt. Committee, questions for our bill sponsor? Seeing no questions, we're just going to do one panel. We're going to bring everybody on together. Megan Wagner, please approach the dais. Megan Tackett, please come up. Emma Donohue. And then, Ms. Smith, if you'll pull up Linda Hutchinson and Melania Jordan online. Okay. All right. We'll go ahead and start with Ms. Wagner. I know that you're listed in an amend position, so we'll let you go first.
Thank you. My name is Megan Wagner. I represent the Special District Association. We wanted to thank the sponsors for working on the amendment that Senator Linstead just mentioned. We are required to publish a lot of legal notices and having that amendment in a list legal newspapers is something that we are very supportive of and wanted to thank the sponsors. And that's all I have to add today.
Excellent. Thank you. Ms. Tackett, thanks for joining us. I think your mic is on there. There you go. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Megan Tackett. I serve as associate publisher of the Aspen Daily News, and I'm also here today on behalf of the Colorado Press Association, which represents more than 130 print and digital news organizations across the state. I am here in support of House Bill 1095, and I want to say at the outset that the amendment before you is one worth celebrating, so thank you for that. It reflects exactly the kind of thoughtful compromise that makes good policy. Public notices are easy to dismiss as bureaucratic fine print, but for the communities we serve, they are anything but. They're how a family in Garfield County learns that a development is proposed next to their water supply. They're how a small business owner in Carbondale finds out about a zoning change that affects their lease. They are, in the most practical sense, democracy made visible. And local newspapers have long been the institution responsible for making that information accessible, not just legally but meaningfully. We publish notices, yes, but we also staff professional journalists whose reporting provides context and continuity in a trusted platform that residents already turn to for information about those communities. House Bill 1095 strengthens that relationship by requiring free online access to public notices, expanding reach without sacrificing reliability. And the amendment, which would require a published list of qualifying newspapers where notices can be placed, has an important layer of transparency for both the public and the government entities navigating this process. The Colorado Press Association urges a yes vote. Thank you for your time and for your service to the state.
Thank you very much. Ms. Donahue, thanks for joining us.
Thank you so much, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Emma Donahue. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 members. We are here in support of House Bill 1095 today. We think this is a great bill that will allow for more transparency and ease of access for legal notices. Like special districts, municipalities also have to put a lot of vital information out through the legal notices process. And we think that being able to have it on a newspaper's website or the legal notices website, not behind a paywall, will make sure that people are able to access the information whenever they need it and to be able to see what important information is going on in their local communities. We also support the amendment. We are hoping that by having these newspapers in one place, it will be easier for municipalities, counties, and special districts to be able to find their local newspaper and be able to put their legal notices out in a timely manner. Thank you so much for your support of this bill
today. Thank you, Ms. Donna-Hugh. And we'll go online. Ms. Hutchinson, thanks for joining us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Linda Hutchinson and I represent the League of Women Voters of Colorado. The League has been nonpartisan for all of our 106 years. The League of Women Voters of Colorado supports House Bill 261095. The League believes that a healthy democracy depends on the informed and active participation of citizens and their government. A component of that informed and active participation is notification of actions of local and state government. Access to that information on government activity should be barrier-free and publication of that information should be the responsibility of a neutral third party such as a legal newspaper or publicly accessible website for legal notices. This bill provides for the online publication of legal notices. Online publication of legal notices is becoming increasingly important as newspapers throughout Colorado cease print publication. This bill also ensures that public access to legal notices is free of charge. That's very important to an informed citizenry today when the cost of a newspaper subscription is becoming more expensive. And finally, legal notices are news and the League believes that control of news content should remain with the newsroom as a neutral third party as this bill provides. This will ensure transparency and accountability, provide a searchable permanent record, and reach a wider audience. The League of Women Vorders encourages you as stewards of democracy to vote yes on this bill because if it provides more voters with easy access to accurate
information on what their government is doing thank you for your consideration thank you ms
hutchinson ms jordan thanks for joining us thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
this bill today my name is melanie jordan and i'm testifying on behalf of the office of respondent parents council our office provides high quality legal representation for parents in crisis who have been separated from their children in dependency neglect cases. When dependency neglect cases open, children are often removed from the home of one parent without the department having any contact with the child's second parent. In this time of crisis, the parent from whom the child is removed may not be asked for the other parent's contact information or may not have it to provide. Counties are required to make diligent efforts to locate parents to notify them, but these efforts are not always thorough and even when they are, they're not always successful. When the county cannot or does not locate a parent, they often proceed by publishing notice in a local newspaper as permitted by law. In 2019, the Colorado Court of Appeals recognized that service by publication may not be constitutionally sufficient if other means of service are more likely to afford actual notice That case requires that when courts authorize substitute service such as service through publication, that it must have a reasonable chance of giving the party actual notice of the proceeding. Subsequent cases have affirmed this important holding. When notice is provided online in a way that is searchable on the internet, it is much more likely to provide actual notice to a party than notice published in a local paper that is not searchable online. This legislation modernizes the notice by publication process in a way that will make it more likely for parents to have actual notice of important cases involving their children. This bill provides common sense solutions that can modernize this outdated process. The cases that ORPC handles involve the most important issues any court case can address, and they deserve to have better and more modernized processes. On behalf of the ORPC, I ask for your support of this legislation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thanks, Mr. Jordan. Committee, questions for this panel? Senator Liston.
Very good. Age before beauty, Senator. Which is which? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure who to address this to. I'm just curious how it will work because I don't go to the statewide public notice website. But if somebody could explain to me with all of the, what, 64 counties? We have 64 or 63. All the counties and numerous publications in each county, who keeps all of that up? Some papers might come and go and so forth. How is all this going to work on this? I'm speaking to the amendment on L007. 007 but if somebody could explain that i'm just curious how all this uh will work
miss donahue oh yeah miss taggett i i think uh since this is a press association run website we will let them handle this question but unfortunately a lot of counties don't have newspapers so it is a growingly smaller list so being able to find them is important for our members but um And I feel like hopefully not too burdensome a task because of lack of vision.
Right.
I mean, obviously, anything that's built from scratch would be a very collaborative effort. But the Colorado Press Association is a very engaged association with myriad committees. The one that I serve on meets weekly, all from professional newsrooms, ranging from the editorial side all the way up to the publishing side of things. Frankly, we put out a daily newspaper every single day. Maintaining a website and a database is kind of in our blood in what we do. So I'm very confident that between the 130 organizations that are represented, we would steward the upkeep of that database very closely and take that very seriously.
Okay. All right. Well, like I say, I was just wondering kind of how it would work, and thank you very much.
Thank you. Vice Chair Snyder.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for coming and testify. So, Ms. Tackett, you're wearing two hats today, I think, a publisher and a member of the Colorado Press Association.
On days I only wear two hats, it's a good day.
So, years ago, a dozen years or so ago, when I was in local government, we made a conscious effort to keep publishing in the hard paper. Mainly as a revenue stream. That was the Pikes Peak Bulletin. They are now exclusively online. So I'm just wondering, it's been a while since I've checked in, how much of a revenue factor is the physical publishing of legal notices?
Hugely. Just take it. Hugely. I would say for print publications, the cost of printing and distributing a newspaper is by far and away just below or competitive with payroll, the largest factor of operation cost to any print publication. and it's difficult to overstate that even in the digital era, print, there's still such a place for print. You know, in Western Garfield County, broadband issues are notoriously an issue. So a lot of your former constituents still relied on having a print publication. And I can say quite confidently, at least for us at the Aspen Daily News, if we were to lose our paper record status and lose the revenue that we get from Eagle and Picken County with legal notices, I would probably have to consider furloughs for my journalists.
Follow-up.
Vice Chair Snyder.
So the bill says that shall make the notice available on its website without charge. But you're saying you're still going to be publishing your daily paper with the legal notices included.
We certainly do. And the Aspen Daily News, by the way, is a free publication. and that's a whole other different TED talk about the conversations of sustainable revenue streams and business models for newspapers. But yes, we would continue printing in print as well as online.
Thank you.
Okay, seeing no further questions, thank you all for your time. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Thanks for your consideration.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the room or online that would like to testify on House Bill 1095 that haven't had an opportunity to do so? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. We'll go to our amendment phase, and do you want to move amendment L-007, Senator Lindstedt, and then you can sign to us?
Okay.
Tell us about it.
L-7 is the amendment that was spoken about that will require the website with a list of all applicable newspapers. I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Any questions on amendment L-007? Is there any objection to Amendment 0-0-7? Seeing none, Amendment 0-0-7 is adopted. Any further amendments?
No amendments. Blessings to you.
Committee amendments? Blessings to you, too. The amendment phase is closed. Final wrap-up.
Senator Linstead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a good bill to make government more transparent and accessible for the public. I ask for an aye vote.
Okay. The proper motion would be to the Committee of the Whole.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1095 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
That's a proper motion. Committee, any questions or comments before we vote? Seeing none, Ms. Dallanzaro, please call the vote.
Senators Baisley?
Aye.
Ball?
Aye.
Lindstedt?
Aye.
Liston?
Aye.
Rich?
Aye.
Snyder?
Aye for today.
Mr. Chair?
Aye.
7-0.
That passes 7-0. Do I have a motion for a consent calendar?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I request that the bill be put on the consent calendar.
Seeing no objection, the bill will be put on a consent calendar. Congratulations. Good luck on the floor. Okay, we'll take a quick senatorial five as we wait for Senator Mullica to join Senator Liston. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we are back, and Senator Mullica has joined us, and we are on House Bill 1257. Who would like to begin? Okay, I'll just pick up where you left off.
You go ahead.
Senator Liston.
Very good. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman and committee members of local government, it's my pleasure and my good colleague, Senator Mullica, it's a pleasure to be with you here this morning and the opportunity to present to you House Bill 26-1257. Basically what this bill does, it fixes unintended consequences of back a couple years ago, House Bill 24-1371, which was passed in 2024. That bill required background checks for all massage facility employees and set standards for both county and municipal massage facility licensure programs. including a provision that local programs could be no more restrictive than state law. The well-intentioned bill inadvertently stripped local governments of regulatory tools they had relied on for years to combat illicit activity. The sponsors of that bill did not intend for that outcome, and so what this bill does, 1257, it corrects those. So with that, I'll let my good colleague take over and tell you what the three targeted changes are that you will hear about.
Senator Mullica. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee, for giving us the opportunity to present this bill. This bill makes three targeted changes. First, it expands the definition of illicit massage business to include facilities engaged in crimes beyond human trafficking, such as drug distribution and money laundering. Under current law, local governments cannot act against a suspicious facility unless they can prove human trafficking. That bar is so high that illicit operators can keep running while enforcement stalls. This change gives local governments a realistic path to action. Second, it removes the restriction that local ordinance be no more restrictive than state law. This restores the ability of municipalities to tailor their licensing programs to local conditions. High density urban areas, tourist corridors, and communities with known concentrations of illicit massage related activity may legitimately need stricter licensing requirements than a uniform statewide standard can provide. For example, standards that provide for location denial periods after a license is revoked, requirements that applications document their right to premises and the ability to set allowable hours of operation are proven effective tools that the 2024 bill took off the table. Third, the bill removes the cap on administrative fees, allowing municipalities to set fees that reflect the actual cost of running a licensure program. The S bill also includes technical clarification confirming the statutory municipalities have the authority to license and regulate massage facilities, a fix needed because the underlying statute was originally drafted to cover in counties. Municipal licensure programs are the first line of defense against criminal activity in these facilities. Local governments conduct inspections, run background checks, respond to complaints,
and monitor compliance every day. They must have the full range of tools to do that work effectively.
House Bill 26-1257 is a targeted bill that restores that flexibility without mandating new programs on anyone. I would ask for yes vote. Thank you.
Committee questions for our bill sponsors. Seeing none, we'll go right into our witness testimony phase. We have two witnesses. Ms. Haskell, please join us, and Mr. Vaughn. Okay, thanks for joining us. Ladies first, Ms. Haskell, thanks for joining us.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Elizabeth Haskell, representing the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 municipal members. So the sponsors pretty much covered the reasons for this bill. I just want to reiterate that this is a cleanup bill from House Bill 24-1371 that has limited the programs that were in existence prior to this bill running that are very effective in shutting down and going after these illicit massage facilities. And Trevor is here today. He can talk a little bit more about that. He's from Aurora. He set up a very robust program in Aurora that's been copied across the United States. And so I think I'll just, if it's okay, pass it over to him and let him tell you a little bit about the need for the ability to have flexible, robust licensure programs, and then we can answer questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Vaughn, thanks for joining us.
Yes, thank you. I'm Trevor Vaughn, Manager of Licensing with the City of Aurora. I really want to thank the sponsors for bringing this forward to help us combat an issue that I think isn't taken seriously enough. Commercial front massage elicits, well, I actually call them elicit sex in human trafficking businesses because they are not engaged in massage therapy. They are the number one source of commercial front human trafficking in the country. And what we've done in Aurora is adopt best practices that were identified through Polaris and has been instituted in other locations across the country in addressing the practices of illicit fronts to combat these locations so that they cannot continue to hide illicit sex and human trafficking activities behind the front of massage therapy. Massage therapy is a regulated health practice, and there's a lot of training and education that goes into it. And so businesses or these operations that are doing this are not engaging in massage therapy. In fact, they stigmatize the massage therapy industry. and the problem with how this has historically been addressed is there's kind of a wink wink nod nod there's not calls for services to these locations and oftentimes they're they're ignored when they shouldn't be when there are victims involved in a network you oftentimes nationwide networks involved with these locations and so instead of addressing the business practices often what happens is they are addressed through police stings that end up arresting the victims rather than actually shutting the business down and permanently removing it from the network. And instead, new victims are just rotated in under the claims that the owner didn't know what was happening. So this allows us to deal with the operations that we know locally and in other jurisdictions across the state to tackle these operations and segment what they're doing from the legitimate operations and ensure the cleanup to what happened in 2024, which I could obviously go into details as to how that limited us in addressing this problem but we fix that Thank you Thank you mr Vaughn questions committee for our bill sponsor or for this this panel Vice Chair Snyder thank
you and I apologize I've already forgotten your name but mr. Bond but I go back long enough I remember in local government when the state set a state
license for massage therapists and took away locals ability to issue their own licenses in Manitou Springs where I'm from we had a very vigorous process but I guess they left this to you at local government to deal with massage parlors and so there is no state preemption no laws of the state it's totally regulated by government and this is looking to basically empower you to take more action and more robust action when investigating and determining whether these businesses are engaging in lawful conduct?
Mr. Vaughn.
Great question. Aurora actually kind of led the way on that massage therapist practice occupational license back in the mid 2000s and then the state did preempt that. There's a lot of cheating and it's not just in Colorado but nationwide with regards to the tests and stuff like that so what's kind of happened is a lot of these businesses will get somebody to front the initial operation and you will still have people inside the business who are unlicensed to practice. But there's also been evidence that people who are human trafficked, and I can obviously tell you more details about it, but I won't use all your time, but that they can actually get them through that process basically by putting them in rooms to study keywords in the test and through diploma mills to get them through that process. But oftentimes what's happening is inside the businesses there are people who are unlicensed in there. And when we do inspections, they'll run from the business and such. So it doesn't necessarily violate the Occupational Practice Act, but we deal with it as far as a business practice, you know, or if the business has unlicensed people in there. And that is not preempted. This was meant to be a partnership. Aurora put this ordinance in place in 2018 or 2019, and is actually copied by the state, or not copied, but used as the basis by the state with the bill in 2022 to give counties the same authority so that these businesses couldn't just
relocate into the counties well you can ask um vice chair schneider thank you and i was as i was looking through the bill we're removing the 150 cap as far as application later it says 500 is the presumed limit unless the city can demonstrate it's necessary or more costly than
that. Did I read that correctly? Mr. Paul. Yeah, that's correct. And for us, that was adequate. We had a fee of $200 when we instituted the program and it increased slightly. I think,
you know, the risk here is we're trying to address, you know, the illicit operators without
overburdening the legitimate operators. And that's really what we tried to design the whole program to do was to basically leave the legitimate businesses alone as much as possible. Thank you. Okay, seeing no further questions, thank you both for your time. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the room or online that would like to testify on House Bill 1257? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. We're now at the amendment phase.
Senator Liston. Very good. And Mr. Chairman, I might just mention this to the good vice chair. You may know this, but up in your district, up near Coronado High School, is the Colorado Institute of Massage Therapy. You know, it's a very legitimate where they train the massage therapists and stuff. And I know the director, at least one of the people who's worked there for years, and they do a real good job. So.
Okay. Yes.
Senator Liston, if you move the first amendment. Very good, Mr. Chairman. I move amendment L-0004 to House Bill 1257. And also, since they kind of go together, if it's okay, I'll move L-005. Okay. Basically, what these two amendments do is they add language that, clarifying language that local regulations are designed to address illicit activity and not to interfere with legitimate businesses. Like I say, L-004 amends the legislative declaration for the bill, including an amending clause that fixes to add the legislative declaration of the bill, and L-005 is an amendment to continue adding to the ledge deck. We had to break it up into two different amendments since it was multiple pages. And with that, I would ask for an aye vote on Amendment L-004 and L-005.
Okay. Is there any questions on Amendment L-004? Seeing none, is there any objection to Amendment L-004? Seeing none. Amendment L-004 is adopted. Is there any questions on Amendment L-005? Any objection to Amendment L-005? Seeing none, Amendment L-005 is adopted.
Senator Liston. Thank you. And our last amendment is L-006, which I move to House Bill 1257.
Tell us about Amendment L-006.
Very good. Members, what this does, this amendment strikes the language requiring background checks to be conducted at least 30 days before issuing a license. Striking this language allows the licenses to be issued on a timely matter, and this fixes an issue that was flagged by local governments related to the timeliness for background checks and the issuing of massage facility license by local government. This is a good amendment. I ask for an aye vote. We ask for an aye vote.
Thank you. Questions on Amendment L-006? Is there any objection to Amendment L-006? Seeing none, Amendment L-006 is adopted. Any further amendments?
We have none, Mr. Chairman and committee. Thank you very much. God bless you.
Committee, any amendments? God bless you, too. The amendment phase is closed. Final wrap-up.
Senator Mullica. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for giving us the time to present this bill. This bill is actually a common sense bill. It's about making sure that our communities are safer. You've heard that, I think, through testimony and through the work that we've talked to you about with this bill. Local governments aren't asking for new powers. They're asking to get back the tools they already had and used effectively before 2024. As you heard, when those tools are taken away, illicit operators are able to stay open, cycle through locations and continue causing harm while local officials are unable to act. The point about human trafficking is worth repeating. Proving human trafficking is extraordinarily difficult. Law enforcement will tell you that. Prosecutors will tell you that. And illicit operators know it. They count on it. This bill will help stop it. I ask for a yes vote.
Thank you.
Senator Liston. I have nothing further to add except to say that, you know, I've had massage therapy and a good masseuse. I trust them. We all, when we go to a legitimate massage therapist, whether at a resort or wherever it may be, is we want it to be done properly, we want it to be done safely, and we certainly want to comply with local rules and regulations, which this bill does. And we want it to be done ethically. So with that, members, we respectfully ask for an aye vote on House Bill 1257.
Thank you.
And I move House Bill 1257 as amended to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation.
That's a proper motion. Committee, any comments before we vote? Seeing none, Sal Lanzaro, please call the vote.
Senators Baisley?
Aye.
Ball?
Aye.
Aye.
Lindstedt?
Aye.
Liston?
Aye.
Rich?
Aye.
Snyder?
Aye.
Mr. Chair?
Aye.
I pass on a vote of 7-0.
Senator Liston?
If the committee is so inclined, I would ask that it be put on the consent calendar.
Seeing no objection, the bill will be added to the consent calendar. Congratulations. Good luck on the floor. Committee, that concludes our work. Thanks for your time. Senate, local government, housing committee is adjourned. Thank you.