Senate Finance [May 07, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

1065, 1077, 1230, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1289, 1327, 1043, 1100, 1117, not necessarily in that order. Ms. Rudab, I should have please call the roll. Senators, Benavides.

Great. Here. Giselle. Excused. Polker. Excused. Polica. Excused. Simpson. Excused. Snyder.

Marchman. Totally here. Madam Chair. Definitely here. We are ready to get started, and I have to go to a bill signing, so Vice Chair Marchman will take the gavel and have a good vote.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Finance Committee. Really glad to be here with Senator Kirkmeyer to present House Bill 1230. This is concerning a very successful and important program in our state, which is the Conservation Easement Tax Credit. This is a huge asset to both of our communities, but in many parts of our state all across the four corners. Just one example for you. Oak Meadows Ranch is located in Moffitt and Rio Blanco counties in my district south of the city of Craig. In northeast of the town of Meeker, the property is managed as a summer grazing ground for cattle by the Steele family, which has been ranching for six generations. Four generations currently help manage the cattle operation there. This 1,721-acre property consists of sagebush, shrublands, montane meadows, and intermountain mixed species forest which provides habitat for greater sage-grouse, bald eagle, Colombian sharp-tailed grass, and a number of other animals. The conservation easement has allowed the family to continue to produce food for their community while also protecting the air, water, and scenic views and wildlife habitat. This property was conserved in partnership with Colorado Open Lands. This Conservation Easement Tax Credit has been our single most powerful tool in protecting rural land, as well as community spaces such as public parks, outdoor education campuses, trails, and community farms in my community and across the state. This is central to who we are. So this credit, we believe, very much pays for itself. Conveying a conservation easement, however, is a multi-year process. There are currently several landowners in the state working with accredited land trusts and open space agencies to pursue a conservation easement who will complete the project after 2026 when all the tax credits are accounted for, which makes them ineligible for state benefits. This uncertainty is likely to effectively stall or raise questions for private land and conservation projects that are already underway. And so extending this tax credit, which is what this bill does, will provide greater assurance and surety to planning these projects into the future. So with that, we ask for your support on 1230, and I'll hand it over to Senator Kirkmeyer.

Very good. We'll take questions from the committee. Senator Benavidez.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Benavidez, for the question. It's a good one. So even though the Conservation Easement Tax Credit has been extended to 2031, due to the long-term nature and planning of these projects, By the end of this year, we believe that all of the tax credits will have been subscribed by the end of 2026 all the way to 2031. So that would create, if we don't extend this, kind of a chilling period between 27 and 31, where larger projects would not even be able to be considered because the tax credits would not be available by the time they were put under easement post So extending this to 2036 will allow more projects and more landowners to consider this starting now knowing that the tax credit will be available for five years longer.

Senator Roberts. Yes, that's accurate. Very good.

I'm Rebecca Jewett, the president and CEO of Palmer Land Conservancy. Thank you to the committee for having me here. Palmer Land Conservancy is based in Colorado Springs, and for 50 years we have been working with private landowners across southern Colorado to protect working lands, our water resources, and preserve the landscapes that really define our community. I'm here today in support of Bill 1230 to extend the tax credit program. From our direct on-the-ground experience working with landowners and representing the public as a nonprofit 501c3, this tax credit is one of the most effective voluntary tools we have for achieving conservation on private lands and working lands in Colorado. It keeps ranches and farms intact, protects wildlife habitat, preserves Colorado's iconic landscapes, which we all know and love, and conserves critical water resources, all while allowing landowners to continue owning and working their land. But this impact extends far beyond individual properties. A Colorado State University study found that this tax credit program generates between $31 and $49 in public benefits for every $1 invested. This translates to an astounding $35 to $57 billion in total public benefits for the state of Colorado through clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, and agricultural lands. At Palmer, we see these benefits firsthand. There's an 11,000-acre property along La Vida Pass that was slated to be subdivided and developed. Today, it continues to be a cattle and bison ranch while also contributing to the amazing scenic views. So not only are we supporting the agricultural economy, we're supporting the tourism and visitor economy in Colorado as well This is exactly the kind of lasting community impact this program makes possible and it a voluntary and highly effective tool for all of Colorado Thank you so much Thank you.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair Marchman, members of the committee. My name is Brendan Witt. I'm a policy advisor at Western Resource Advocates. WRA supports House Bill 26-1230 as a continuation of one of our state's most successful efforts to ensure that natural and working lands remain intact and healthy. We are grateful to Senator Roberts and Senator Kirkmeyer for bringing this bill forward. Conservation easements are a popular and effective tool to help protect habitat and biodiversity on private lands from fragmentation and loss. Many of Colorado's most important landscapes and high-quality wildlife habitat are currently stewarded by private landowners. This bill makes important changes so that Coloradans who are willing and eager to take advantage of this crucial conservation tool can do so beyond the current sunset date. House Bill 261230 will ensure that conservation is a competitive option for Colorado landowners to choose over development, helping maintain the billions of dollars in ecosystem benefits provided to all Coloradans by conserved natural and working lands. This is particularly important in our state where land values continue to rise, and competitive interest in properties with wildlife values can be fierce. As the primary threat driving the loss of natural lands and open space in Colorado is development, we feel it's essential to extend the sunset period for this beneficial tool to make sure it is available to as many Coloradans as possible who want to conserve intact landscapes. Thank you again to Senator Kirkmeyer and Senator Roberts for sponsoring this bill and to the committee members for your attention. We urge you to vote yes on House Bill 26-1230.

Thank you, Vice Chair Marchman and members of the committee. My name is Brian Webster. I'm the Senior Public Lands Campaign Manager for Conservation Colorado, and I am here today in support of HB 1230. Voluntary conservation easements are one of the most important conservation tools we have. In the last 60 years, they have conserved nearly 3 million acres of working lands. Yet, as we all know, our state is growing rapidly, costs are increasing, and the demand of available land to develop has only gotten stronger. The math is sobering. In just the last 30 years, we've lost 2 million acres of farm and ranch lands to development. We are fighting to conserve the values, heritage, and landscapes that make Colorado what it is, but we are barely keeping up with the losses, and across the West, we are losing a football field of habitat every day. While I'm here today representing Conservation Colorado, I also serve as the chair of the State Habitat Stamp Committee. Through that work, I have seen time and again just how vital conservation easements are to our state's wildlife. Conservation easements are the backbone of landscape connectivity, securing critical winter range, protecting migration corridors, lebex nesting grounds, patrician areas, and lands that safeguard our watersheds, communities, and ecosystems. The Conservation Easement Tax Credit is essential to protecting Colorado's agricultural heritage, wildlife resources, and the landscape connectivity that is so important to the interests of our state. Practically speaking, it gives working families the financial viability to stay on their property while conserving it for the broader public good. Right now, however, this program is heavily oversubscribed. Current forecasts indicate the authorized tax credits will be fully allocated by the end of 26 without extending the sunset provisions to 2036. Colorado faces a damaging multi-year freeze in private land conservation. We will strand landowners already in the pipeline and permanently lose irreplaceable conservation opportunities. For these reasons, I strongly urge a yes vote on HB 1230 and would like to thank the sponsors for bringing this forward.

to Nick Consiglia. Good afternoon, Vice Chair and Committee members. My name is Nick Consiglia, and I'm here today in support of House Bill 1230 as the father of an autistic child. This program, one of the most powerful things about it is how flexible it is and how it leverages public dollars. We hope to access the conservation tax credit easement to preserve 10 acres of what is currently the largest undeveloped contiguous piece of land in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. And we'll preserve that as an open urban farm for education and communication purposes for the community. The tax credits allow us to then supplement housing development that we're going to build on an adjacent seven acres. And that housing will be a neurodiverse, a neuroinclusive housing development to provide forever homes for our kiddos with IDD. Not just autism, but fragile X, Down syndrome, other conditions. Without the additional capital in the stack from the tax credit program, I don't think we could preserve as much land for the urban farm. And we would have to build more homes and increase the costs. So the program is giving us the ability to preserve open space in an incredibly dense environment already. The location that we've purchased is at 38th and Kipling, effectively, in the middle of a residential neighborhood. And providing permanent housing for kiddos with IDD means we're hopefully reducing future costs for the state in other areas that would be involved in caring for our kids in different environments. So I hope you support this.

Thanks, Chair and members of committee. My name is Erin Spohr, Executive Vice President of Colorado Cattlemen's Association, representing cattle producers all across the state. Today, I'm here in support of House Bill 1230 to extend the Conservation Easement Tax Credit. The Colorado Cattlemen's Association is actually the oldest state cattlemen's association in the country, founded in 1867, and all our volunteer leaders have long understood the importance of land stewardship. They had the vision to establish the nation's first agricultural land trust in 1995, the Colorado Cattlemen's Ag Land Trust. And for farmers, Colorado's farmers and ranchers, conservation easements are a practical, voluntary tool that helps keep land in agriculture. They allow families to do what's best for their operation and give them options, whether that's to avoid development, maintain productive operations, and or transition to the next generation. It may not be the right fit for every operation, but it remains one of the most effective tools we have. In Colorado we lost 1 million acres of farmland in just a five period and most of that has gone to development that we not getting back So as we think about these policies we need to make sure we keeping all the tools in the toolbox to help producers stay on the land and everything that comes with depends on the open space, wildlife habitat, water resources, and strong rural communities. At the end of the day, this is about keeping Colorado's working land working and supporting the people who steward them. Thank you.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the witnesses. Appreciate them, and I think they make a very strong case about how successfully this is working and why we should continue this for another five years.

Ditto. It's a great bill. Please bow down.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors. Near and dear to my heart as well. the 1.5 million acres, I want to call Aaron Carney, but it's not Carney anymore, referenced, led the nation, was the most loss of productive agriculture ground anywhere in the United States, not as a percentage basis, but absolute value. And conservation easements play a vital role in protecting what's near and dear to many folks' hearts, I know is the open space and the ag opportunities and the water rights and just really excited to support this bill.

Thank you, Bill Sponsor, for bringing this bill. Having been raised on a farm and the heritage within my family is eastern Colorado ranches, I understand the challenge with regard to generational transfer of ownership and all the tax laws that come around with that. So any vehicle we can put together to try to preserve those generational transfers is awesome. And also having worked with some entities in northern Colorado that help facilitate families to walk through this space, I know this is a highly valued program and happy to support it to continue.

I move House Bill 1230 to appropriations. That's a proper motion.

Senators Benavides Yes Wright Yes Rizal Yes Polker Yes Polica Yes Simpson Aye Snyder Excused. Excused.

You got the bulk. Oh, you're on already. Oh, sorry. Okay. You ready?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to Senator Roberts for allowing me to join him on this bill. House Bill 1065, this bill does two major things. First, it allows local government to partner with transit agencies and OEDIT to identify local transit investment areas for developing helpful transit investment projects. And second, it creates affordable housing tax credit to help get more affordable housing units built within those transit investment areas. I'll leave it to the experts to explain the finer details of tax increment financing, which is nothing here in Colorado we've done. We've been doing it. Nothing new here in Colorado. We've been doing it for years with lots of investment projects around the state. Let me say this. It lets local government keep the state sales tax collected within the transit investment area for use by the local government in building, improving, and maintaining their approved transit investment projects. The bill is 68 pages long, so it's quite clear about how these transit investment areas are to be run, as well as how the project should be developed and approved or rejected, with everything leaning towards transparency. There's even a cap on how many investment areas can be approved in a calendar year, just three, and how many can be going on at the same time, a total of six, and how much money can be taken from the state to use these local investment areas, up to $75 million in a given fiscal year. Similarly, there's a limit on how much money can be spent on affordable housing tax credit, a total of $350 million over 12 years. So there are good guardrails in this bill for transparency and financial security. Public transportation is a vital service. Well-developed transportation hubs near population centers are a growing necessity. And affordable housing units near public transit systems is smart public policy. This is a good bill with all three of those things. And this is why I encourage the committee for a yes vote on this good bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Finance Committee. And thank you to Senator Exum for being a partner on this effort And I am really excited to be doing this bill especially with Senator Exum as he the chair of the local government and housing committee and has worked on these issues many times But it also shows that this is a bill that I think will benefit the entire state. From more urban areas like Senator Exum represents in southern Colorado to mountain towns and rural areas and everywhere in between, This is something that many of our communities will be able to take advantage of. And I will note, this is a housing and transit bill that we have immense support from local government and organizations at the local level. CML, CCAT, CAST, many counties, many private industry, including the general contractors and many other organizations who see this as an opportunity to improve transit areas, to make public transit more attractive to riders, but then all of the businesses that can take advantage of those riders and increase housing development around our transit areas. So Senator Exum noted what we're trying to do is do two main things. Create the ability to have transit investment areas which would be able to take advantage of a TIF using just the state sales tax so it does not impact any local tax revenue but just the state sales tax revenue to help improve and develop within two miles around a current or future transit area. And then the second part is creating these transit and housing investment zones in which we create a new state income tax credit with awards administered by CHAFA to help with housing development around our transit areas. We can get into many of the details. As Senator Exum noted, it is a little bit of a long bill, a lot of technical changes. And I will note many amendments were done in the House, close to 18 amendments in the House. We have one more technical one that we're planning to offer today, but really do appreciate the pretty broad collaboration that has gone into this at many levels of government as well as in the private sector and look forward to the discussion today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sponsors, for bringing the bill. Very long bill. Appreciate that. It'll give us a lot of time to read through it. Of course. I just want to get a general understanding, if I can get a 30,000-foot overview, that these districts, the housing districts, are these meant for the new rail line? Are they meant for any public transit that we have? And how are we defining that?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, Senator Kolker. So this could apply to rail, front range passenger rail, mountain rail. But this is not just about housing around rail. This could be around bus stations or other types of public transit hubs. So it is not exclusive to the big rail efforts that we're familiar with in this building. What the transit investment housing area, and I can have technical witnesses follow up with some of the technicalities of this, but essentially there would be an encachment area around the transit center, And then that is where the housing credits would be available to help finance. And they can, of course, stack on other funding sources that are helping that project get underway.

Thank you. And I will wait for some technical questions here. I know how complicated these can be at this time, especially. My other question is...

And maybe I should wait for more technical, but if you have an idea. Is it single family? Is it multifamily?

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Colker. Yeah, I would welcome witnesses to follow up. I think it depends on the area, though. it's not, I think the tax credit is going to be agnostic as terms of for sale or rental or multifamily. I imagine most of them would probably in reality be multifamily given the more dense nature of the two-mile catchment zone. Thank you. Senator Exum.

Thank you. Senator Benavides.

Would one of you care to respond?

Senator Benavides?

That's the question.

Okay. Just one thing is what I read in here over the 12 years,

I see where you're seeing that this is page 8 of the fiscal note. It says the bill authorizes a total of $350 million in affordable housing. located in a transit. So that would be the $50 million cap over those 12 years, right? I mean, I think you're correct. It is potential general fund impact. But again, we could get into the conversation about the economic activity that this will bring and other types of tax revenue that will offset the loss.

just two questions um and i there was a reference to it and pardon me i i don't know what is all involved in advantages to when we created transportation oriented communities like does the bill this potential creation of a new authority does it align do they work well together or in conflict i just don't know how they interact with each other and again if maybe witnesses might might have more expertise in that space. Senator Exum.

I think they do the anticipated increase in revenue, the issue for eligible users, and the purpose of this is to spur development in distressed areas, blighted areas, or underutilized areas that would not otherwise receive or attract private investments. So I think they could work together. Senator, I mean, sorry.

Oh, Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, Senator Exum's right. The bill, in order to create one of these transit investment areas, and there can only be up to three a year statewide, so it is going to be not happening in every community all of a sudden all at once. But it's encouraged and likely the way that it will happen is local governments partner with transit agencies that already exist in the area to create this authority. So, yeah, they would be, I think, standing up a new entity in order to administer the credit, but it would be in partnership with whoever needs to be involved.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and to that point, sponsors, if I'm reading the bill right, we're creating a new tax credit that I think has carry-forward authority for a number of years but is not a refundable tax credit. So if you don't use it, if you get a credit, you don't use it all in one year, you get to carry it forward to the next year up to three years, and then if it still hasn't been used, it becomes exhausted. I'm just seeking clarity.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe that's right. Also in the House, they amended the bill to make sure that this was an annual appropriation, not continuous appropriation. Thank you.

So we are going to call up first in our witness testimony, Aaron Meschke. Who is online? Ms. Meshke, we are doing two-minute testimony today. So we are on Bill HB 26-1065. You have two minutes. Please introduce yourself and proceed. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meshke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. I have great respect for the Senate sponsors, but in the past couple of years, I have testified against similar bills because using taxpayer money for a program that benefits limited, mostly front range, urban areas, isn't wise or equitable. There are no guarantees that affordable housing near transit lines will appeal to most Coloradans, so this step may have no impact on the housing shortage. It was said in the House that public transit isn't doing better because housing isn't nearby, but I challenge that assertion. Historically, when people have more ability, they move away from city centers. While the additional sales tax may not have a huge impact on individuals, it continues the precedence of increased cost of living from an onslaught of sales taxes and fees. Even incremental increases add up over time, and this must be kept in mind when the legislature is nickel and dime in Colorado citizens. Beyond that, HB 261065 puts RTD in bed with developers in a way that is irresponsible, especially when RTD has such a poor track record of accomplishing new projects. Between 2019 and 2022, ridership, which is the chief metric for return on investment, fell 46 percent, while RTD's budget increased 3 percent. And as of January 31st, 2024, fares only recovered 4.4% of RTD's operating costs. Fast Tracks has completed 78 of the planned 119 miles of rail at the cost of $72 million per mile. A Winter Park witness in the House hearing spoke of mountain transit, which is great, but people aren't choosing to live near those bus lines just because they use the bus to go skiing. To complicate matters further, most developers aren't interested in building affordable housing because of the much lower profit margins and higher risk. With a historic amount of rental vacancies, perhaps we don't need to incentivize new building but refurbishing of existing rental units so we aren't wasting currently available real estate resources. While some housing may be needed, to declare this an emergency seems like a stretch, and the use of the safety clause doesn't allow for community representation, so I ask for your new vote on HB 2610-565. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for Ms. Meshke? Seeing none, thank you so much for testifying today. We appreciate it. We're going to bring up our two in-person witnesses, Bev Stables and Julia Selby. We're also going to bring up our first two remote witnesses, Nick Kutrumbos and Karen McShay. Okay. You know the drill. Please, oh, our mics are really weird today, just FYI for everybody. So the one that's in front of you, the little green button is in front of her, and then your green button is, oh gray button is over there It very confusing I had trouble with it too yesterday Noted Please proceed Thank you Madam Chair and members of the committee My name is Julia Selby and I the legislative liaison and policy analyst at the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority or CHFA We're here to testify in a neutral position and as a technical expert on the proposed new housing tax credit contemplated in the bill. CHFA is very proud to be the statewide allocator of the federal and state affordable housing tax credits as well as the new and innovative state tax credits, the Middle Income Housing Tax Credit, or MYTEC, and the TOC, or Transit Oriented Communities Tax Credit. All of these are designed to promote the development of affordable, multi-family rental housing. House Bill 1065 builds on this innovation by proposing a new state housing tax credit that's an additive resource to encourage housing development near existing and future transit zones for low- and middle-income households. Modeled after the successful state affordable Housing Tax Credit, which has supported nearly 15,000 units since it was reauthorized in 2015, the bill gives CHFA the authority to award $8.3 million in six-year credit between 2027 and 2033 to bring in private sector investment to help make housing developments in transit zones financially feasible that otherwise would not be. In exchange for the credit, the developer will lease the units at affordable rents for at least a 15-year period. The credit is designed with flexibility for serving various income levels of future tenants with the opportunity to pair with federal or state affordable housing tax credits or the middle income housing tax credit or standalone. As Colorado continues to face an affordable housing crisis, the housing tax credit programs have been oversubscribed by a rate of over two to one, meaning housing developments otherwise ready to proceed are unable to simply because of a lack of resources. CHAP is grateful to the bill sponsors for their endorsement of the housing tax credit program as a powerful resource to support affordable rental housing opportunities in Colorado and for the spirit of innovation represented in the new credit to encourage housing and transit zones. Thank you. Thank you. Please hold for questions. Ms. Stables. Thank you so much, Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is Bev Stables. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 member municipalities in support of House Bill 1065. Colorado municipalities are facing a common challenge. How do we accommodate growth, expand housing opportunities, and invest in transportation infrastructure all at the same time with limited fiscal resources. House Bill 1065 provides a practical and fiscally responsible answer. This bill authorizes local governments to create transit investment areas and authorities to finance projects that support multimodal infrastructure. It gives communities a flexible and locally driven tool to support the kind of coordinated development that Coloradans are asking for. More housing near jobs in transit, safer multimodal connections, and infrastructure that supports long-term economic vitality. Importantly, this bill does not mandate participation. It simply gives municipalities another option and one that communities can tailor to their local needs and priorities. For many cities and towns, the infrastructure needed to support housing and transit-oriented development is expensive and difficult to fund up front. Sidewalks, bike and pedestrian connections, roadway improvements, and transit-supportive infrastructure are essential investments, but they often outpace available revenue sources. House Bill 1065 helps bridge that gap by allowing future growth in tax revenue to help finance the infrastructure that makes that growth possible in the first place. This approach aligns transportation, housing, and economic development goals in a single financing mechanism, and it is fiscally responsible because it leverages future value curated by development rather than relying solely on existing taxpayer dollars. Communities across Colorado need more tools to respond to growth, improve mobility, and expand housing opportunities, and House Bill 1065 provides one of those tools. I respectfully urge your yes vote on House Bill 1065 and appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. Please hold for questions. Mr. Nick Kutumbroth, I'm... I'm botching it, so please just introduce yourself, and we'll get it right next time. Thank you. No problem. Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Nick Atrumbus, and I serve as the mayor of Winter Park. From our perspective in mountain resort communities, this bill represents an important catalyst for responsible, balanced growth across Colorado. What excites us the most is that this bill is fundamentally focused on public improvements and public benefit. It creates tools that allow communities either on their own or to partner with the private sector in a way that prioritizes infrastructure, accessibility, housing, transportation, and long-term community outcomes. In communities like ours, the cost of infrastructure can be so significant that transformative projects around transportation hubs either become financially infeasible, get shelved indefinitely, or only portions are ultimately built. Too often, the public-facing improvements, housing support, transit connections, community infrastructure, and amenities are the first things lost. This bill helps change that equation. It gives local communities the ability to create meaningful public-private partnerships that make projects shovel-ready today. It also supports the full vision that comes from local master planning and negotiations with development partners, ensuring projects deliver broader community value, not just private return. Importantly, when these projects succeed, the state succeeds alongside them. Responsible growth generates long-term economic activity and new tax revenue for Colorado, while helping keep mountain communities attainable, economically resilient, and connected through housing and multimodal transportation investments. In Winter Park, we see tremendous potential for innovative projects and partnerships that we believe the state will ultimately be proud of and excited about. Thank you for your time and your consideration of this important legislation. And thank you for your testimony. Finally, we'll go to Ms. McShay. If you'll unmute yourself, you have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Finance Committee. My name is Karen McShay. I serve as Vice President of Development and Public Finance for Altera Mountain Company. Altera owns and operates Winter Park Resort, Steamboat Springs Resort, and Arapahoe Basin, three of Colorado's most iconic destinations and among the largest private employers in Colorado's mountain communities. I'm honored to speak in support of HB 261065. The bill gives communities a financing tool to build integrated multimodal transit systems connecting rail, bus, aerial transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure into seamless networks. For mountain communities, this is how we compete or complete rather the mountain rail corridor. Today, the Ann Trach Winter Park Express brings visitors directly to our resort and ridership is growing. But when the passengers step off the train, they still need to reach their hotel, ski school, downtown restaurants and their workplace. Without a complete transit system at the destination, we push people back into their cars and undermine the state's rail investment. At Winter Park, we are building a true multimodal transit hub, exactly what this bill envisions. It connects the rail station to aerial transit, local bus service, etc. The result is a journey that you cannot make anywhere else in North America. Fly into DIA, take the A-Line to Union Station, board the train of Winter Park, and ride aerial transit to your final destination No car no congestion no emissions As one of the largest employers in Grand and Route counties we live the workforce housing crisis every day Our employees need safe, reliable, and affordable ways to get to work. We built Conifer Commons with over 330 workforce beds. Through Winter Park Unlocked, we are partnering with the town of Winter Park to develop transit-oriented workforce housing around the transit system. This bill tackles both the Affordable Housing Tax Credit, Section 9, incentivizes housing. Together, they create communities. Thank you. If you could please wrap up, we'd appreciate it. Yes. In closing, HB 1065 gives Colorado communities a tool to build a complete transit system. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions. Members, we have questions for this panel. Senator Benavides. Thank you. And I apologize, I don't remember your name from Chaffa. From Chaffa? Yeah, I didn't remember her name, but the question is for her. With respect to, you talked about you all handle the affordable housing tax credit and the middle income tax credit and an existing transit tax credit. I can't remember the name of it. But with these, is there any requirement that the housing built in these transit zones would have to be affordable housing? And at what level? Because, yes, we are under an affordable housing crisis, but it's my understanding it's really the lower-priced housing that we need. and I'm not sure this is going to provide it. So can you speak to that? Ms. Selby. Thank you. Thank you for the question, Senator. The intention is to keep the new credit flexible to meet a variety of needs. So it could be paired with, as you mentioned, the state or federal affordable housing tax credit, which has an income level of only up to 80% AMI with an average of 60% AMI. So in the case that this credit is paired with that resource, that AMI level would govern. In the event that this may be paired with the middle income housing tax credit, that by statute has an AMI level of serving 80 to 120 percent of the area median income and up to, excuse me, up to 140 percent of the area median income in high cost rural resort areas, in which case those AMIs would govern. But by statute, CHAFA serves low and moderate income Coloradans, which is defined as up to 140 percent AMI. Senator Benavidez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so the other part of the question in which I didn't maybe describe it well, do you anticipate any lower income housing in this if that is, and you can say if you disagree with me, where I think that's more of the need of the lower priced housing that we have in our current affordable housing crisis. So do you anticipate that or do you disagree with that? Selby. Thank you for the question. I don't disagree with that. I think the reason why there is no AMI levels in statute is to retain that flexibility, but we definitely do anticipate that this will assist those low-income families that you were describing. Thank you. Senator Kolker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Selby, just want to make sure I understand some of the testimony, what I heard, because you were talking about affordable housing in your testimony and talking about rental property, and that's, as my colleague says, something that concerns me too. um we have a lot of rental property uh the first witness i think talked about a lot of rental property that might be not being used right now I don know the numbers I don know how much overstated that is My concern is giving people an opportunity to own. How could this be used for ownership instead of, could we see condos? Could we see townhomes? I know we want to have some density. That's why we all think of rental property. but we need ownership too. And you made the comment that if this was paired with middle income or the others that we have available, does this have to be paired? So two questions, ownership, and then if it's on its own, what are the factors for affordable on its own? Ms. Talby. Thank you for the question. To your first question, this tax credit is only contemplated for rental housing. There are other resources out there for affordable home ownership opportunities, and CHFA, of course, has a big role to play in affordable home ownership opportunities. I'm happy to send you information about our work in that space, but this tax credit is only contemplated for that rental sector of the housing continuum and modeled after the federal housing tax credit and the state affordable housing tax credit, which, again, is just rental. And to your second question, I'm so sorry, could you just high-level repeat it? Senator Colker. Again, it was income, you know, the tax credits that are used. So what's the income limits? How do they determine this if it's rental only? Ms. Selby. Thank you. And you asked specifically if this credit was standalone. I think it would be kind of deal-specific. So when someone applies for tax credits, regardless of what type of tax credit it is, they will tell us at what levels of affordability they're planning to offer, and that's described in a land use agreement. So CHEFA has a compliance role to play, and then also there's this land use agreement that kind of locks in those affordability levels. So we would evaluate that. And as I mentioned before, the opportunity here is to serve low and moderate income households, so that's up to 140% AMI. Though I wouldn't suspect that all of this credit would be geared towards the middle income sector of the housing continuum, but it's serving a broad spectrum of needs. Thank you, Senator Simpson. I mean, sorry, Senator Colker. Apologies. We look a lot light. I know. Last question. Then, since it's rental, what's the term that this affordable housing is good for? Ms. Selby. 15-year minimum affordability restriction. Thank you. Senator Benavides. Thank you. Most of the credits you've been describing are to the developer, not to the individuals. And I know CHAFA does individual credits, not at all. Or actually do individual assistance in purchasing homes, not as a credit. So would you still be able to... what you've been describing is to the developers, not to the homeowners or renters, but you still have assistance that you provide to those individuals, and do you anticipate doing that for some of these units? Ms. Felby. Thank you for the question. So the way that it works is the tax credits are always awarded to the developers, either for-profit or non-profit developers, and those developers generate equity with that tax credit that allows the subsidy to provide a lower rent to the tenant So ultimately it the tenants that are benefiting from this program in the form of a lower below rent But the tax credit subsidy does not go directly to the tenant. It goes to that developer who then passes along that savings to the tenant. If that makes sense, it answers your question. Thank you. Okay. I see no further questions. Thank you for being here today. We really appreciate it. We're going to call up our next four witnesses who are all remote, I believe. Katie McKenna, Max Nardo, Rebecca Kaufman, and Karen McShay. Also, this is our last call for witnesses on this bill. If you have not signed up to testify but would like to, it is your time to come forward and take one of the empty chairs at the front of the room. We're going to start with you, Mr. Nardo, since you're on. You have two minutes. It's nice to see you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nice to see you. Max Nardo, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. We support 1065 because transit-oriented development is one of the most reliable paths to achieve real progress on two of this body's priorities, improving cost of living and meeting our climate commitments. First, a note on apartment affordability to Senator Benavidez, while it is sometimes thought that all new apartments are luxury and we need income limits to get affordability, recent construction does tell a different story. Census data shows that two-thirds of Denver apartments built over the last five years are affordable to households making less than the area median income. So that is market rate housing delivering affordability simply as a supply-side solution without being required to. So back to my main testimony, the current development pattern is pretty untenable. I think we all know about the housing shortage, affordability struggles. You just discussed all the natural land we're losing, not to mention perpetual road maintenance liabilities that we're grappling with now. So by contrast, multifamily housing in town centers is a proven model for affordable living, generates less traffic and road construction than any alternative while supporting our climate and air quality goals. To Senator Simpson, you asked about this stacking with other recent policy developments. I think that's part of the beauty of this. It is consistent with recent laws and an emerging strategic growth framework. Housing needs assessments are being released now. They consistently identify large unmet needs for smaller homes at low and mid-market prices, the very home types supported by 1065. The transit-oriented development law from 2024 has communities identifying these transit areas that would be great candidates for TIF areas, and they're backed with affordable housing tax credits that Julia discussed, as well as infrastructure grants. So I view all of these as stacking very well. So in conclusion, COD is a core solution, not a marginal one to the challenges that this body works to discuss. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Katie McKenna. You are up next. You have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 1065. My name is Katie McKenna, and I'm here on behalf of Archway Communities and the Neighborhood Development Collaborative. Archway is a Colorado-based nonprofit affordable housing developer and owner, operator, and service provider, and the Neighborhood Development Collaborative is a coalition of Colorado-based nonprofits and housing authorities who build homes for low- and middle-income residents. First, I'd like to take moment to thank the bill sponsors and the governor's office for acknowledging the important connections between housing and transportation and for bringing this policy forward, making these important links to housing and transportation. I think Senator Exum in his intro said it really well that housing near transportation is just good policy. At Archway, we see every day how important it is for affordable housing residents to have reliable access to transit, which brings them to jobs, schools, healthcare, community resources, and everything else we need in life. Transportation costs are often the second largest household expense after housing, and so creating this important link is really critical. We're especially grateful for the inclusion of the housing tax credit within this bill. Archway, as part of our nonprofit mission, would utilize it to serve the households who need housing most at the lowest incomes. Affordable housing projects continue to face significant financial challenges, including higher construction costs, insurance, interest rates, all the things you hear about. And this is part of the solution to make these projects possible. I also really appreciate the bill's focus on the long-term partnership between local governments and transit agencies and housing development. This kind of coordinated investment is really meaningful. So thank you again to the sponsors for bringing this thoughtful bill forward, and I respectfully urge you to support House Bill 1065. Thank you. Thank you so much. Please hold for questions. And last but not least, Rebecca Kaufman, you are up next. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Senate Finance Committee. My name is Rebecca Kaufman, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns in support of House Bill 261065. transit and housing investment zones. Colorado's mountain communities are facing a housing and transportation crisis that threatens the long-term sustainability of our local economies. Across the state, we face a shortage of over more than 100,000 housing units. And in ski towns, these pressures are even more severe. Rising housing costs have pushed many workers farther away from the communities where they work, forcing long commutes and increasing traffic congestion on already strained mountain corridors. At the same time, our local economies depend on reliable transportation systems and a stable workforce. Restaurants, resorts, retail shops, transit systems, and small businesses all rely on employees who increasingly cannot afford to live nearby. That reality impacts not only workers, but also visitors and businesses that depend on a healthy tourism economy. House Bill 1065 gives local governments an important tool to address both of those challenges together. This bill helps incentivize affordable housing development while also supporting multimodal transportation investments that reduce congestion and improve access to mountain communities. For ski towns, this means the ability to create communities where employees can live closer to where they work, while also expanding transportation connections between workforce housing, downtown centers, ski resorts, and regional transit systems. It means building tourism without simply expanding highways. This legislation supports economic sustainability, environmental responsibility, and long-term community vitality. It creates opportunities for workers, supports local businesses, and strengthens Colorado's tourism economy. On behalf of CAST I respectfully encourage your yes vote on House Bill 261065 Thank you for your time Thank you Members do we have any questions for this panel I think you covered it all. Thank you so much for being here to testify. We really appreciate it. We've had our last call for witnesses, so we're going to bring at least one of our sponsors back up for the amendment phase. Senator Exum. We are informing the other sponsor, so if he wants to come back. But would you like to start by telling us? I believe we've had an amendment passed out? Yeah, we did. Okay. Would one of you like to tell us about L20? Thank you, Madam Chair. amendment L19 it's kind of two parts technical cleanup and then there's some more substantive changes some of the technical stuff it aligns terminology and references improving clarity and intent references to economic development commission and third party analysts the annual dollar amount to maximum annual dollar amount of state tax increment revenue. It also is clarifying the commission sets a total project cap that projects cannot exceed, even if TIF revenue is higher than anticipated. It's giving more specific direction to economic analysts for factors to consider. It's clarifying the amount of housing credit allowed to be carried forward as half of the previous year's maximum amount half of what's left, and clarifying transfer rules on the housing tax credits. Some of the more substantive changes are clarifying and better specifying the Office of State Planning and Budget's role in reviewing and advising the baseline growth calculations, and then clarifying the maximum limits when maximum projected increment exceeds maximum project costs to use the lower amount of the project costs. It also caps the number of local government fee waivers available per year to limit the general obligation to streamline the process for approving them. It was determined that OEDIT can handle this without assistance. And prioritization guidelines for OEDIT when multiple qualified projects are considered, How they fit in with the regional and state plans, geographical equity scale and availability of matching funds. And finally, it's allowing street trees, public plazas and pedestrian spaces connected to transit projects to be eligible for the funding. Thank you. Members we have concerns questions. Senator Bright. Thank you Madam Chair. You mentioned L-19. Are you actually referring to L-20? Yeah, I'm Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, it was originally supposed to be L-19, but that was written to the local government and housing committee instead of the finance committee, so when they redrafted it, it came out as 20. Ah, good clarification. Thank you. Okay. Are there any objections? Oh, I'm sorry. Vice Chair Marchman. Thank you. I move L to House Bill 1065 Thank you That is a proper motion Is there an objection Oh I sorry Was there another question I am sorry Senator Frizzell. Thank you. Yeah, I just had a question about tax increment financing, sales tax, using sales tax in a tax increment financing arena. Is that something that the state has done before? Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Verzell, for the question. So, yes, there's one example of the state doing this before. It's called the Regional Tourism Act. It was a 2009 bill that established the Regional Tourism Act, and this was intended to use tax increment financing seem to create tourism-related capital improvement projects in designated areas. Ultimately, five total projects were approved by Oedit. And I'm looking at page five of the fiscal note, by the way. Five projects were approved by Oedit. Some had great success. Others had mid-range success. But that is what a lot of this bill is, the structure of which at least is based on for the transit investment areas. Thank you. Does that answer your question, Senator Frizzell? Yes. Okay. I have others, but it's okay. Would you like to ask any others? Okay. Thank you. So the question before us is L020. Is there any objection to L020? Seeing none, L020 is adopted. Do you have any further amendments, sponsors? Committee, do you have any further amendments? Okay, seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Close. Who would like to close first? Senator Exum. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee, and thanks to the people that gave witness testimony. I'll just close by saying that this transit housing investment bill is multifaceted because we have a multifaceted problem in affordable housing, And this gives us some options for developers that want to do projects in that area. It has some real good guardrails around it because it limits to three per year. And we thank you for the questions and the conversation. And would ask for an aye vote on House Bill 1065. Okay, great. Thank you. Senator Roberts.

Okay, members, you have comments. Senator Benavides.

Any other comments? Seeing none. Senator Colker? No. Oh, okay. We do not have all of our committee members here at this time. If it is acceptable to the bill sponsors, we will continue with our agenda and come back and vote on this later. you can be here for the vote or not. I know we are all in multiple places today. Is that acceptable to the bill sponsors? I'll just be across the hall, so just let me know and I'll come back. We will let you know and bring you back. I'll be down in the Supreme Court in HH. Okay. Health and Human Services and Ag. Got it. We will get you back for the vote. Apologies that every...oh, wait, no. We can take a vote. Great.

That is the proper motion. Ms. Rudebush, will you please take the role? Senators, Benavides? No. Bright? No. Gosell? No. Holker? Aye. Evelica? Yes. Simpson? No. Snyder? Aye. Marchman? Aye. Madam Chair? Yes. Congratulations. You are on your way to appropriations on a vote of 5-4, correct? Okay. Thank you. much for for bearing with our end of session schedules we appreciate it I got one. I have one. Okay, we're going to go ahead and take up 1306 because I know we have people who have been patiently at the beginning of the agenda who have been waiting to get this done, so we're going to go ahead and do it. Where we left this bill off is for action only because we had an issue with getting the fiscal note to zero, and due to the brilliance of many people working on this with great minds, we were able to get this taken care of. So L006, in the House there was an amendment to address the TABOR impact of the HUTF and drives fees. L006 offered today will address the TABOR impact of the final fee that has changed for every new license plate that is issued. We were able to address this in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Revenue by having those one-time fees for the HUTF drives and tab production fees paid paid using existing revenue in the Wild Horse Cash Fund. How this would work in practice is that DOR would set the fees in the system to zero through June 30, 2028. During that time, the DOR financial services team could bill CDA based on the number of plates sold, and CDA would transfer the appropriate funds from the Wild Horse Cash Fund to the HETF drives and plate and tab production cash funds. Because this is an existing state revenue that has already been accounted for, it does not have an additional TABOR impact when it is moved from CDA to DOR. We are essentially just switching which agency will spend that existing revenue. CDA would use existing funds allocated specifically to support this program for the transfers, thus eliminating the TABOR impact while making sure HUTF drives and the plate and tab production cash funds receive the appropriate revenue. This makes sense for CDA because it will receive long-term TABOR exempt funding for the program that will more than offset the cash fund transfers. And I know that was very complicated, but that's what we have to do sometimes to avoid the fiscal impact, which we managed to do, because it was really just moving money around, but it's the way in which you move it around. So that's basically what this amendment does. So with that, I move L06 to HB 26-1306. and Vice Chair March. Does anyone have any objections? Seeing none, Amendment L-006 is adopted. To the bill, we're just going to vote on the bill now. I'm going to ask for any more amendments. Does anyone have any other amendments to this bill? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the amendment phase. Do you want to move the bill to approves? Thank you. Yeah, I move HB 26-1306 to the Committee on Appropriations. We did hear this bill the other day, so I don't need to expand on it. It is a license plate bill. It will help the Wild Horse Cash Fund. I ask for a yes vote. Very good. Closing comments. Seeing none, Ms. Rudebush, will you please poll the committee? Senator Sanavides. No. Great. Yes. No. No. Holker. Aye. Malika. Yes. Simpson Aye Snyder Aye Yes Madam Chair Aye That passes on a vote of seven to do and we will have a good time in appropriations Thank you for being patient as we move bills around. I apologize for the wait for those of you who have been waiting. Senatorial. License plate bills. There's no way to avoid it. I think our next bill up is our Senator Frizzell, Senator Snyder on HB 26, 1059. Are you two ready to go? 1059. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Fabulous. We'll go ahead and get started. Who would like to begin?

Very good. Thank you, Senator Frizzell. Senator Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee, for hearing 1059 today. And as my co-prime sponsor said, this is really about government efficiency, about, you know, right now every time a new program is created, it requires an individual cash fund with separate accounting, reconciliation, reporting requirements. What we're doing is taking these various many funds that have been established over the years and bringing all of their administrative costs and other things into a standardized process. And they can then use that one fund, administer that, pay out all that needs to be paid for the various enterprises. But it really creates a lot of government efficiency and really standardizes the process for how we do that. So it a very simple bill it has a zero fiscal impact we should not have to go to appropriations but I believe that that just not going to happen because we're transferring all these little funds into one big fund. It has absolutely zero fiscal impact, but nevertheless, it is what it is. Here we are. Thank you. Okay, any questions for our bill sponsors? I'm sorry, Senator Frazell. Okay. Apologies. Things are sort of quite chaotic. Do we have questions for our bill sponsors? Seeing none, let us move on to the witness phase. You guys can just stay there. We have two people signed up remotely, and this will also be our last call for witnesses. We're going to call up Jason Grothaus and Scott Kohler. And if anybody is in the audience who wishes to testify on this bill but did not sign up, this is your chance to come forward and take one of the empty chairs up front. But Mr. Kohler, we will begin with you. And please introduce yourself. You have two minutes. Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this bill. My name is Scott Kaler, and I am the controller at the Department of Revenue. And I'm here today to testify in support of Hospital 1059, which creates a single-cost recovery cash fund for the department. I do want to note that I am attending on behalf of Jason Grohouse, Deputy Chief Financial Officer with the department. He was unable to attend today's hearing but did sign up for testimony. This bill would establish a consistent process for the department's cost recovery activities. Current law allows the department to retain an amount equal to the department's cost in collecting, administering, and enforcing certain fee revenue for other departments, agencies, and enterprises. This revenue that the department keeps is transferred to multiple cash funds for the department to cover its costs. Recent bills, as mentioned, created three separate cash funds for the department's cost recovery, a new cost recovery fund for each new fee type collected by the department. This has proven to be an inefficient model with operational hurdles. This bill would repeal each of these cost recovery funds and consolidate the funds used for the department's cost recovery into a single cash fund. This consolidation will help reduce administrative work completed by the department by not managing multiple cost recovery funds. And lastly, this bill would create a standardized cost recovery fund to incorporate in future bills, which streamlines future legislation using the cost recovery cash fund instead of creating a new cost recovery cash fund for each new revenue type. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to try to answer any questions the committee may have. great thank you very much I think that's the only witness that we have does anybody have any questions for our expert witness seeing none thank you so much for joining us today and for your testimony is there anybody else who would like to testify seeing none we'll go ahead and close the witness phase amendments sponsors no amendments committee also no amendments Very good. We'll close the amendments phase. Let's do some wrap-up. Who'd like to begin?

Very good. Senator Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chair. And as Mr Kohler the Comptroller Kohler said this really benefits everybody So it simplifies it It makes it easier for DOR staff to manage easier for legislators to understand and easier for auditors to review in the future. If we're creating another program that has a cash fund like this, new cost recovery provisions will take minutes to draft as opposed to hours using standard, consistent language for all of them. So I think it's a real good bill, creating more efficiency within the department and for everybody involved, and I would also ask for a yes vote. Very good. And which one of our fine finance members would like to move the bill?

You'll get to go there again? With a very favorable recommendation. Incredibly favorable. Very good. Closing comments from the committee? Seeing none. Oh, Senator Snyder. I just have a question. Doesn't the chair of the committee have the ability to route the bill when she sees the wisdom of not going to a probe? If she gets a fiscal note memo. Seeing not one of those. Ms. Rudebush, will you please poll the committee? Senators, Benavides. Yes. Bright. Yes. Rizal. Aye. Holder. Excused. Amelica. Yes. Yes. Snyder. Aye. Marchman. Aye. Madam Chair. Yes. Congratulations. You are on your way to the committee on appropriations. And next up, I believe we have Madam Vice Chair and Senator Linstead on 1077. So we'll take a senatorial five while we get Senator Linstead in the room. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. ...of the day. You know this is what it's like at the end of session. We going to do 1043 up next And if Senator Snyder gets back we will also do 1100 1043 is Transportation Network Company Discriminatory Practices. We can get it done quickly. Just rocking and rolling. I believe in magic. Okay. Senator Kipp, when you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, members of the committee and chair, for hearing this bill today. At its core, 1043 is about one simple principle. People with disabilities deserve equal access to transportation, and when discrimination occurs, there must be meaningful accountability. Today, ride share services are a critical part of daily life in Colorado. They are how people get to work, to school, to medical appointments, to grocery stores, and home safely at night. But for many Coloradans with disabilities, these services are still not reliably accessible. Too often, riders with disabilities are denied rides, left stranded, charged improper fees, or treated differently simply because of who they are or because they use a mobility device or a service animal. While federal and state anti-discrimination laws exist on paper, enforcement mechanisms have not kept pace with the realities of app-based transportation systems. When discrimination happens in practice, individuals are often left navigating confusing complaint systems with little transparency and very limited recourse. For many people, pursuing accountability is simply too burdensome, too time-consuming, or too inaccessible to realistically achieve justice. As a result, discrimination continues without meaningful consequences. House Bill 261043 creates a clearer and more effective pathway for accountability. It modernizes enforcement so that our laws actually function in the context of the transportation systems people use today. Importantly, this bill does not create special rights or unfair burdens. It simply ensures that rideshare companies operating in Colorado are held to the same expectation we place on every other business open to the public, that they do not discriminate against people with disabilities. This legislation also sends an important message about dignity and independence. For many people with disabilities, accessible transportation is not a convenience. It is a difference between participation and isolation. Transportation access directly impacts employment opportunities, health care access, civic participation, and overall quality of life. When someone cannot reliably get a ride because of discrimination, it limits their ability to fully participate in our communities and economy. I also want to emphasize that this bill reflects extensive stakeholder engagement and thoughtful collaboration. We have worked with advocates, impacted individuals, and the ride share companies themselves to ensure this proposal is balanced, practical, and responsive to real-world experiences. The goal here is not punishment for the sake of punishment. The goal is compliance, accountability, and equal access. At the end of the day, Colorado has long prided itself on being a state that values inclusion, fairness, and equal opportunity. Those values mean very little if they do not extend to people with disabilities in their everyday lives. House Bill 261043 is an opportunity to make those values real in one of the most essential areas of modern life, transportation. I respectfully ask for your support on House Bill 261043, and I am happy to answer any questions. although Jack Johnson is much smarter and can answer the questions if I can Senator Colker Thank you Madam Chair Just a quick question Didn we do a bill like this previously I just don't remember the history. Senator Kidd. I would ask Mr. Johnson because he will have a better background. We have done several bills in the disability space this year, though. Very good. Does anybody else have any questions for the sponsors? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and start the witness testimony phase. We have four witnesses. Three are in person. Jack Johnson, Jessica Beachum, and Elizabeth Moran. And then online we have Kirsten French. All right, Jessica, you want this one in the middle here? Got that one? All right. You're up. You're up for Elizabeth. All right. It looks like everybody is here. Let's start over here. Okay. Oh, thank you. So, hi. I'm not Elizabeth, but I'm Molly. I'm here to talk on behalf of her, and I'm here to support on behalf of the Art of Colorado. I think I'm not going to say what she's going to say, but I would say kind of I think the main message is about dinner tea. safety. A lot of times people just really cannot hope that they get denied. A lot of times it's blind users who are server ammos, server sammos that need to get places. My friend has been denied. She has panic attacks. She doesn't feel safe and that's because she's blind. If you weren't blind you wouldn't have that trouble. If you don't have disabilities you wouldn't have that trouble. That's what the bill is about. It's given them dignity and respect. I can talk about how Uber has impacted my life. It gives you independence. It gives you transportation. And most importantly, it gives you that right that everyone else has to get places, to be able to be independent, to be safe. A lot of times we want that to work, but they can't get to work because of the disability. I can tell you I have been left behind in a snow field, in snow, because of the fact that I chose the wrong location. It's not due to fact that we have disabilities. It's due to the fact that the system isn't accessible. That's what we're asking for. It's not extra rights. It's not about RIRON. It's about making sure people like everyone else, this way or not, can get to the places, can rely on that transportation. And I think to me, it's a human right. It's saying you may have a disability, but you are going to get places. That will don't make you safe. And it's a developed Accountability. At the end of the day, that's all we want. Safety, accessibility, dignity, respect, and most importantly, if something happens, just the knowledge in it. And it's not just me. I have been in, there's plenty of people who strongly feel about this. So when you vote yes, you're not voting yes on one person, you're voting yes on dignity and humanity. That's what we want. Let us get there safely. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Kirkham, is that right? Yes. Yes, wonderful. Great. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll keep it quick. My name is Jack Johnson. I'm an attorney at Disability Law, Colorado, here, testifying in support of House Bill 1043. To Senator Colker, to your question, we've done some work on this before, but one of the significant barriers that we have faced is that in the other areas of law, the Colorado Anti Act pretty well covers a lot of discrimination and service denials However it is difficult to pierce the veil in ride companies because ride companies don have employees they have contract workers which means that the company himself can challenge the liability provision and only the worker then is liable under CATA, but the worker is often judgment-proof or they're hard to track down and find. And the pervasiveness of this problem is that, You know, Jessica sitting next to me would have to hire me as her personal lawyer if she wanted to, you know, get at the root of this cause to file cases every single day. And so this is a regulatory framework that, in addition to CAUDA, allows the companies themselves to be held accountable. It's a part of the PUC, but it's a part that has been working well. And, in fact, we don't have any known cases of these cases being filed with the PUC. And that, but, you know, you'll hear today that lots of these cases are occurring. And so this tries to free up that mechanism so that these complaints can be filed and appropriately dealt with by the PUC. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And now we'll go here on the end. Okay. Is this on? Hi. My name is Jessica Beauchamp, and I'm president of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado. And sitting by my feet is my guide dog, Prada. She sits with me on lots of rideshare rides. And some of them I get to take. Some of them I get denied, as do many other individuals with disabilities across the state of Colorado when we try to take rideshare. We are often left in inclement weather, unsafe environments, or in situations where we have to be late or miss important meetings, appointments, or other engagements. We've tried negotiation. We've tried litigation. we've tried enlisting local law enforcement to uphold the laws that are already in place and as I've experienced sitting in the back of a police car in Littleton Colorado hoping that local law enforcement would help me to uphold the laws that we already have here in Colorado that doesn't always happen and so we need a different solution we need a solution that provide some transparency both to individuals with disabilities on the best way to get results. As Mr. Johnson shared, we don't have any reported PUC cases currently of ride share discrimination, even though I can't even tell you just this year how many times I've been denied. And that's because most of us don't know, aren't even aware of the current reporting mechanisms that are in place. So this system will make easy reporting mechanisms in place. It will create opportunities for rideshares companies to have to share more information with the PUC. It will make available the information that they do share because as a person with a disability, quite frankly, I'm not confident that currently rideshare companies might be sharing all of that information with the PUC. And so this bill will be a great opportunity for us to have a Colorado based solution that will hold rideshare companies accountable for following the law and that will help us get where we need to go with dignity and with autonomy. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Ms. Beachum. And now we're going to go up on the screen to Ms. French. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for your time. My name is Kirsten French and I'm the manager of community education advocacy at Guide Dogs for the Blind, and I'm here representing the 59 current handlers that we have from our organization who live in Colorado who share that ride-shared are the number one problem that they face with accessing life with their guide dog. A 2004 study that we did found that 83% of handlers report that they experience rideshare denials on a regular basis. These rideshare denials are not just a minor inconvenience. They have shown to have a net loss of social impact and activities, impact financially, and also a psychological impact, as other individuals have shared. As a guide dog handler myself, whose guide dog Knightley was raised in Colorado, I know firsthand the impact that these rideshare denials have on myself and other handlers. These have a significant impact on our ability to access all areas of daily life that others take for granted. We want to share our strong support of this bill. This is an opportunity for Colorado to be ahead of the curve in making sure that the rights that have been so clearly laid out in the Americans with Disabilities Act can be consistently applied to all areas of public life. Recent litigation from the Department of Justice against rideshare companies have shown that internal policies are not enough, which is why we want to talk about the importance of the required training that is outlined in this bill. This would ensure that the common response that our handler's experience of the driver did not know is not something that can be applied again and again and ensure that meaningful change is made. Thank you. Thank you. Committee, do we have questions for these witnesses? Senator Snyder.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Snyder, for the question. Because ride-share companies employ contractors and not employees, the relief designated often would have to be under the ADA or CAUTA directed at the driver and not the company. And drivers are judgment-proof. They're often hard to track down, and they switch between companies often. And also a lot of this is failure for the companies to support their drivers and training. And so we want to, you know, this is a balance where it doesn't provide individual liability to the company. Like you can't, you don't sue them under CATA. We're not adding a right under CATA. But it does allow the PUC to look at complaints. And a key part of the bill is looking at them from a systems level. So the PUC can say, you know, you have one complaint a month versus you have ten complaints a month and address that with those companies individually to try to break down some of these systemic barriers and provide relief without a high degree of litigation required.

Mr Johnson Thank you Madam Chair Thank you Senator Snyder The two courses of action one outside this bill which could be you could try to hold them individually liable but two the bill incentivizes these PUCs to take corrective action which may include terminating the employment of that driver, which would be, you know, the company could say, we saw that driver, we trained them, they still didn't follow the law, we terminated them, and the PUC can take that into consideration and say, okay, we're not going to give you a fine then. And so it incentivizes the TNCs to police their own members through termination or other types of employment-related actions. Thank you.

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question, Senator Frazell. Yes, the transportation network companies under the current law have the option, currently can have complaints brought against them, and there can be a fine levied against them. However, they get a first offense. So you have to file a specific complaint, and then that specific complaint has to not be addressed in order for the PUC to take action.

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question, Senator Frizzell. yes and I think the reason is because we put it on the back end rather than the front end so the front end says the complaints invalid if they haven't had an opportunity to cure it whereas now it's on the back end it says they can take into consideration if you've taken an adverse action but the PUC has the authority to first investigate determine whether the complaints valid and make sure that you're actually taking that you know corrective action rather than just you know put it on the front end where it's immediately dismissed. And the reason that's important is because I've never had the same Uber driver more than once. And so what that would mean is that I would have to file a complaint every time I had a new driver because that's a new complaint. Because it's not against the company, it's against the individual driver on behalf of the company. And that becomes really burdensome because, you know, every driver's first offense against me is basically get out of jail free card. So it's not just one first offense, it's every ride I'm taking is that first offense. Ms. Beauchamp? I was just going to say, then they don't pair you with that driver again, so there's not even an opportunity to have a second complaint with that driver to get them removed from the network.

Oh, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do, actually. We went through this a couple of rounds because in the House we started with a fiscal note related to an administrative law judge. And really what the PUC came down to is that they thought that the workload, because they are staffed to take complaints already and they haven't gotten any, And so they actually have the capacity to take a certain level of complaints already built in when this program was first created. The fiscal note in the House was related to an administrative law dredge that was going to work after a complaint's been filed to resolve those complaints if the TNC were to challenge it. Because of all the really great stakeholder work that has been done on this bill that the sponsors have done and the community has done, the TNC companies feel pretty confident that they won't need to challenge a lot of cases and that where this bill lands is an equitable solution where they have the flexibility to go take actions against their drivers in order to mitigate fines. And so because of that, that's why that ALJ administrative dollars came off in the House and reduced the note. Thank you.

Seeing no further questions from the committee, we'll go ahead and release this panel. thank you so much for being here today to testify. And we'll go ahead and call our bill sponsor up. Senator Kipp, do you have any amendments? Committee, do you have any amendments? Seeing none, the amendments phase is closed. Wrap up. Good bill, vote yes. I mean, people who have disabilities should be able to get to where they're going to. Very good. Would you like to move your bill? This one goes to the Cal. I move HB 26, 1043 to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation. Very good. Ms. Ruda Bush, will you please poll the committee?

Wright. No. Rizel. No. Colker. Aye. Mullica. Yes. Simpson. Aye. Snyder. Aye. Kip. Yes. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes 7-2. We'll see you on the floor. Thank you so much. Thank you. And next up we're going to call up Sounds good. Okay. We're going to call up House Bill 1100. And thank you, Senator Snyder, for being here to present HB 26-1100.

Members, you have questions. Senator Simpson, excuse me, Minority Leader Simpson. Are we back to that? I'm sorry. Minority Leader Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Snyder. I'm trying to reconcile the, I think I'm looking at the right fiscal note from April 26th that says there is no fiscal impact in this next fiscal year, but then a $1.4 million impact the next fiscal year, and a departmental difference that says it's $4 million. Am I looking at the right fiscal note?

We have the fiscal analyst coming to the rescue. Life show. I'm a friend. Mr. Armstrong, please help us. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the record, John Armstrong, our legislative council staff. I am – that should be on the website and in your box. the zero fiscal note that Senator Snyder is referring to. So we will make sure that we get that posted as soon as possible. Apologies if it's not in your box. But there is a second revised note that does still include a departmental difference but does not contain any expenditures in the budget or the out year. Do you have any further questions about the fiscal minority leader? Okay. Whoa. Wait, you might not want to leave yet. Senator Benavidez.

Senator Schneider. Thank you. And thank you for the question, Senator Benavides. There is no additional staffing or anything needed here. This will just go into statute and will be a guide for people operating in this space to know what the rights of a ward are and how to protect and preserve them, and then some of the other charges put onto people in the guardianship or conservatorship capacity. but there will be no additional staffing or any additional decision-making. It's really just going into statute. It's really what we could salvage from the original 68-page bill that didn't have any fiscal impact.

Senator Snyder. I probably unnecessarily confused and conflated that. That was a separate bill. No, the Office of Public Guardianship got permanent funding a couple of years ago. I think it was one of Senator Gardner's last efforts. And they've gone through a bit of a shakeup. They have a new executive director who I hear is just a real go-getter and has really cured a lot of the issues that we faced with that office. But this is a more generalized guardianship Bill of Rights It would apply to the people acting in a guardianship capacity with that office but it's much broader. It covers everybody anywhere in Colorado who really seeks to have a decision-making authority over another.

Okay, thank you. Do we have further questions? Okay, Senator Minority Leader Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. so I'm in box and there's not an updated, but I trust you. I get it. I just haven't found it. Sorry, Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Minority Leader Simpson. And yes, we are just working on catching up to the appropriations analysis that came out of the House Appropriations Committee. In the Canary budget analysis for that, it indicated that if the Appropriations Committee adopted L3, which they did, that the bill would not require a J amendment and wouldn't have any expenditures in the out year as well. We will get the revised fiscal note published as soon as possible. If you – I'll defer to other staff if we need any kind of a official word on that to route it appropriately, but we'll – this can be routed to the cow in my assessment. In my assessment, I'll get you the revision so that it can stay that. Not without that. So Ms. Rubish says she needs a new fiscal note. We'll get it. So we can hear the bill now and we can make sure we vote for it later in the day. Is that acceptable to everybody when we have a new fiscal note? Good deal. Yes, of course. We will get the bill through all of the necessary steps, and we don't have to vote on it at the exact same time that we hear it, but it will be today, sometime before midnight. Okay. Any other questions for our bill sponsor or the fiscal analyst? Okay. With that, we do have five people signed up to testify in this bill. One is in amend. Four are in support. Can we bring them all up, Senator? Okay. Thank you. We have Lisa Blatner, Molly Kirkham, Elizabeth Moran, Jack Johnson, Christina Butero. Okay. There's three in person, so you should be there. Yeah, Mark, I'm sorry.

Well, actually, we'll say, is there anybody else in the room who wishes to testify on this bill? Because it is time to come forward. If not, Senator Snyder will stay at the dais. Okay, there we go. And we are just going to go from my left to my right, and then we will go up on to the remote witnesses. So, Mr. Johnson, would you care to start? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jack Johnson, attorney at Disability Law Colorado, here testifying in support of House Bill 1100. You know, I want to, I have not been here since the start of this bill. This bill is in its form in terms of improving guardianship in the state of Colorado, really started almost a decade ago with then Representative Ransom in terms of individual rights of people who are subject to guardianship. Because when we talk about guardianship, what we're really talking about is one of the most prominent restrictions of a person's individual rights that the state has on someone. That includes most of your civil rights It can include who you marry if you have the opportunity to vote where you live who your friends are and all of the above in terms of every aspect of life And so guardianship in the state was updated in the early 2000s and late 1990s to update Colorado to the previous uniform law. When that update occurred, it was at the time on the cutting edge of individual rights and the powers of the state to keep someone safe. However, here we are 25 years later needing updates again. And the reason we need updates is because every year as we look at guardianship, what's happening is that individuals who used to be subject to guardianship in that average age, which was mostly older people, are being replaced with young people with disabilities or severe mental illnesses who are now subject to guardianship. And so dealing with this new age of new types of people who need support in their life, The law needs to reflect that. This Bill of Rights is an important step because it gives judicial officers a clear guidance on what the rights are of someone who's subject to guardianship and ensuring that when they are restricting those rights, they're looking at what this legislature and this legislative body thinks are important to them. I'm happy to answer any questions, and thank you for your time. Thank you. And, sorry, please proceed. Oh, okay, yes, you have the right mic. I'm sorry. This is the end of session. We have used these mics, and that's why they're all mixed up now.

Thank you so much And I believe Ms Moran Thank you Madam Chair and committee Elizabeth Moran from the ARCA Colorado For those of you who aren already familiar we the state chapter of a 14 network of advocates all across the state of Colorado I here today to provide testimony not just from the lens of Coloradans with intellectual and developmental disabilities, but as a former litigator in guardianship cases where basic civil rights were violated without any explicit language for me to argue that a guardian was in violation of those rights. As the former chair of a state advisory Committee on the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights, and a member of the very task force that developed this particular model bill of rights. Also, importantly, as a sister of an individual with IDD and a father with Alzheimer's. In the United States, there is no nationally recognized statement of rights for adults with a guardian. This bill of rights fills that void. Guardianship reform efforts since the 80s have really focused on rights that people have at the beginning of a guardianship case. So the right to get noticed, the right to an attorney, so forth and so on. What this bill does is it gives explicit language that helps protect individuals for the very things that Senator Snyder was talking about, the horrific stories that we see on the news. Things like people being isolated, people being abused, neglected, fraud, assault, all of the things that we, those horrible stories that we see. This bill matters for several reasons, not the least of which is recognition of how many services and supports have been taken away from people with disabilities by all of the Medicaid cuts. Surely this is going to cause more isolation, more vulnerability, and this Bill of Rights does provide some basic civil rights protections that I think are at the heart of nearly all of the abuse cases we hear. We've taken so much away from people with disabilities this year. My ask of you is to give this back. give them some explicit language that says that their civil rights matter i urge a vote of yes

lisa blattner please unmute yourself and you have two minutes good afternoon um thank you modern chairman and the members of the committee my name is lisa blattner and i'm a licensed Colorado Elder Law Attorney practicing in Colorado Springs. I'm also the chair of the Elder Law Section, although I'm testifying today in my personal capacity as neither the Section nor CBA Legislative Policy Committee has had time to meet and vote on the bill. I'm here to testify for an amend position on HB 1100. We are in support of the Bill of Rights. However, we're asking for an amend specifically to exclude paragraph, subparagraph two of section one that can be found on page four lines 14 through 21 of the bill as an amending as it does not go to the rights of the adults. The reason I'm asking for subparagraph two of section one to be stricken and that it's not about the rights of the individual ward but rather as the duties and powers of a guardian and a conservator. These duties are already codified in 1514-314 and 315 for guardianship and 1514-425 for conservators. These statutes actually have a significant expansion to those listed in the Bill of Rights. HB 1100 is intended to lay out the rights of the ward, not to lay out the duties and powers of the guardian and conservator. Adding this section increases confusion on what a guardian's and conservator's duties and powers are and would not only confuse the ward but private citizens acting as guardian or conservator and would lead to excessive litigation costing the citizens and state of colorado litigation would also increase based upon litigation of the statute not the rights of the individual more specifically as to paragraph 2 subsection b including the paragraph regarding on in line 18 including this would lead to additional confusion and lead to unreasonable expectations conservators are already allowed the power to prosecute and defend actions claims or proceedings in any jurisdiction for the protection of assets of of the estate and the conservator in the performance of the fiduciary duties. However, it's important to know that Colorado case law holds that although Colorado Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act allows conservators and guardians to be legal representatives of incapacitated people, they are ultimately not licensed attorneys and thus cannot engage in the practice of law.

Therefore, we are in support of the Bill of Rights, just asking for an amend position. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak with you today in support of House Bill 1100. My name is Christina Butero. I am the Adult Advocacy Coordinator with the Arc Pikes Peak Region. In my role, I serve as a guardian agent and have been nationally certified through the Centers for Guardianship Certification for more than a decade. I also support families planning for the future of their loved ones as they reach the magical age of 18. The legal designation as an adult is an exciting time filled with hope and anticipation for the next chapter of a young person's life. Planning for the future often starts at a young age when children are asked, what do you want to be when you grow up. For that young person, it shifts all of the rights they will obtain as an adulthood and starts them thinking about what they want to exercise. For children with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families, they are not asked that question. They are told you will need to get guardianship when your child turns 18. Families report that this discussion starts when children are in elementary school. The hope and excitement for the future are dimmed by the anxiety and dread of anticipating that process of obtaining guardianship. It unintentionally shifts focus from abilities to limitations. It also creates a desire to protect by limiting what rights a young adult is allowed to exercise, ultimately infringing on one's autonomy. The school to guardianship pipeline keeps churning. This bill is a great start to ensuring person-centered approach to every guardianship or conservatorship by recognizing the importance of autonomy. It holds appointed guardians and conservators responsible for ensuring that we don't forget our responsibility to ensuring people have the opportunity to exercise every right they hold important for their autonomy. I'm hopeful in years to come, the Bill of Rights, as well as the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act, will expand and be enacted in Colorado. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and maybe for the attorney, Ms. Blattner. I'm trying to keep up. I think in front of us is the re-engrossed bill. Could you tell me again which sections you were addressing? Ms. Blattner.

Minority Leader Simpson, did you want to follow up?

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Simpson, for the question. So the specific language that she is talking about is actually part two of the original recommendation. So the original summit recommendations, so the model bill of rights, directed the task force to categories into three tiers. The first one was rights that are always retained after the guardian is appointed. So those are explicit rights that the individual maintains no matter what. The second section were personal rights that the court may restrict but cannot be delegated to a guardian. What Ms. Blatner is referring to this on paragraph 2, section 1 on page 4, 13 through 22, is the third tier, which is the rights that may be delegated to the guardian to exercise on behalf of the adult. I believe this is a key part of the Bill of Rights. I believe it should remain. I will tell you where we are in agreement is it says the court may authorize a guardian or conservator to make decisions. and given that this bill is strictly regarding the guardian, not necessarily the conservator, I think probably a friendly amendment to remove conservators since there is law in place that addresses conservator, may be appropriate. Thank you.

No, Madam Chair, but I think we heard some valid suggestions. I did look at this section when I first read the bill and had to read it again because I really wasn't in line with what I was expecting. I don't believe it because it says a court may authorize. So it's not, I don't think it conflicts with existing statutory law to the, at least to the degree that Ms. Blatner thought it might. But I would be considering possibly a small amendment should we get out of committee on the floor to see if we can get this even tighter.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and committee, and thank you to the witnesses for giving their expert testimony. I think to just look at the big picture here is there's been a real shift in attitudes when it comes to things like supportive decision making and and really I think this strikes a good balance between establishing that you know folks who might be in need of assistance perhaps even a guardianship but we can do that in a way that preserves as much agency as possible for folks. So if you look throughout this, it says to the degree possible, that kind of language is in there. We want these people to be as involved in their lives and the decisions in their lives as much as possible. But I think we also at the same time recognize many folks in this community can't handle all the decisions day-to-day life takes. But to the degree that we can keep them involved and engaged and give them that agency, that's what we tried to accomplish with this Bill of Rights. And I think we've gone a long way. Like I said, we can make some small changes if we get through this committee. But thank you for your time, and I would respectfully again ask for an aye vote.

Hey, thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee for giving me a chance to bring House Bill 1327 to you. Before I say anything, I really want to take this opportunity to thank the House sponsor of this bill, Representative Forray, who has done a significant amount of work on this. And a lot of bills that we run in this building, we have a lot of support from different organizations, whether that's lobbyists or research or whatever. And Representative Forray really came up with this concept from her own personal experience, her lived experience, work experience. and didn't have some of the typical support that we see during the process of a bill. And so she deserves a lot of credit for really trying to tackle what is a real issue in our state. And so I want to be on the record making sure that we recognize that. 1327 is about protecting Colorado's workforce and ensuring workers can access affordable health care. Right now, Colorado taxpayers are subsidizing health care costs for employees of some of the nation's largest and most profitable corporations. As Colorado faces budget pressures, we have two choices. Cut health care services and provider rates or ask the largest corporations to help support the health care needs of their workforce. This bill focuses only on the largest private for-profit employers operating in Colorado. Not small businesses, nonprofits, or local employers. House Bill 1327 applies only to companies with more than 500 income-qualified employees enrolled in Medicaid. Employers have options under this bill. They can provide ACA affordable health coverage to part-time employees or pay the workforce support fee. The bill specifically exempts franchises, unionized companies, seasonal workers, and employees under 18. This legislation was improved through stakeholder feedback to create flexibility for employers while protecting workers and health care access. Funds generated by the bill will help stabilize Medicaid providers and support workforce health care programs. The bill also creates oversight through a diverse board including business, labor, employees, and health care experts. House Bill 1327 is not a tax on workers. It is not a Medicaid expansion bill. It is not a wage mandate or job killing policy. This bill simply ensures that some of the wealthiest corporations in the country contribute to maintaining a healthy workforce in Colorado. Colorado cannot continue asking taxpayers alone to shoulder the health care costs of large, profitable corporations. I also just want to be clear, too, that through work and stakeholding, there is a two-year runway with this enterprise clock starting. And so there is room to try to address things and try to make sure that we're doing it the right way through this bill. And that was done through amendments. And so, members, again, this is a good bill. I think it's a bill that makes a lot of sense. And I would ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Senator Mullica for taking this on. I know it's a challenging space. But I guess just a fundamental question. I know we just recently passed a bill that was going to provide an in-depth comprehensive study of Medicaid in Colorado. So I'm just wondering, would we be better off waiting for the results of that study as part of an overall comprehensive reform as opposed to a piecemeal approach with a bill like yours.

Thank you, and I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate that question, Senator Snyder, and been a part of that bill as well, and hopefully I think I'm going to be participating in that process as well. I will say that, again, to harken back to what I said, is there is a two-year runway here, and so we are able to even take information that we get from that process over the summer to make this better. But I do think that when we are looking at this and you have these large employers that do have Medicaid qualified employees, we as taxpayers pay that. And so I think what the goal of the bill is, the way it's written, is to say, look, we just want to say if you have these folks, make them eligible for an insurance plan with your employer. If not, then pay in and help out with the cost of the Medicaid that they're eligible for. But there is a two-year runway to take feedback that we get from different things that hopefully we'll get this summer as well from a deep dive.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Bill Sponsor, for addressing this concern. I've noticed that there's been several versions of the fiscal note that have floated through.

Sorry. I've noticed that there's been several versions of the fiscal note that have floated through. Can you describe kind of what has driven the change in direction that's resulted in different fiscals?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Bright. There's been a number of changes in the House. Amendments brought both in appropriations, second reading, and in the health committee. And that was through a lot of stakeholding. If you want, I can go through all of what those amendments did. Just let me know. I have kind of a list of what they do. But it was through a number of stakeholding that continued in the House.

Thank you, Madam Chair. just a summarization of the direction would be great.

Senator Bright.

And could you explain that over coming back every year?

Please, Mr. Fung.

Senator Wright.

Mr. Fung.

Senator Bright, do you have further questions? Okay. Why don't you hang out there in case we have more questions, Mr. Fung. Minority Leader Simpson.

Thank you.

Oh, Senator Mullica.

Minority Leader Simpson.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, please, thank you.

and continue to make life even less affordable in Colorado?

Too late. I don't know. I didn't mean to say that. Too late, too late. Oh, thank you. I appreciate that.

And one last dialogue question.

I'd just offer a challenge to figure out how do you get this to a Senator Kirkmeyer zero fiscal impact over the next two years. And I don't know if you have it.

That's not fair, Senator Simpson.

Not in the next two years, though. No, 2728 has $33.3 million. Am I right? What I'm looking at has zero state revenue in 2728.

So that third year, you'll have more revenue coming in, though.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So a lot of times people who are working part-time for a variety of reasons, sometimes just that they want that kind of flexibility, they work multiple part-time jobs. And so how would you be able to tell if this person would or would not qualify without truly doing an individual analysis Senator Mullica Thank you Thank you Madam Chair

Thank you. Because we have a considerable number of gig workers, if you will, and so they're not specifically exempted in this legislation. And I get that their contract workers said that their arrangements are a little different, But, again, it's kind of like, are we splitting hairs there?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I don't necessarily think they would apply, from my understanding, because they're 1099 workers. And so it's not necessarily, they're not. By definition. Yeah, exactly. Very good.

I do have some questions about the constitutionality of the bill, also with respect to if it might be in a violation of ERISA. And I'm not sure you're – I can hold off on witnesses, but my question is if the bill passes and it were challenged and the enterprise doesn't yet exist, who would pay the litigation costs to the state? Whose budget would that come out of?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Benavidez. So I think as with any law that's challenged in the state of Colorado, I think it's the Attorney General's purview and job to essentially defend that. So that's not just this bill. I think that's any bill. I think that's the role they play. And if I can, can I just maybe address the ERISA piece? I know that. So what this bill does is it doesn't mandate network design, covered benefits, internal appeals, funding mechanisms, or claiming process rules. Recent cases have found no ERISA preemption when the state law increases costs or alters incentives for plans, but doesn't force plans to adopt a particular plan design or structure. That's from a Maryland case. The mandated reporting concern, information about the employees and their hours worked and not necessarily about the plan or the benefits provided to the employers. Reporting requirements that require detailed information for planned record keeping have been found to be preempted by ARESA. And there's a case here. And I'll preface that by saying I read that. I'm not a lawyer, Senator Benavidez, but that is the information I have on ARESA and some of the conversations we've had with it.

Senator Bright, and then I'll go to Senator Simpson.

Mr. Fung. It's over there.

Senator Simpson.

Seeing no further questions, we do have some witnesses signed up. So we'll go ahead and invite up, we've got two in person, Trey Rogers, Katie Wolf, and then we've got Catherine Wallet and Nancy Dolson online. Okay, great.

Thank you. And thank you. And now we'll go to Ms. Wolfe.

Ms. Wolf, apologies. I don't mean to cut you off. Because all we have online, I believe, is that Nancy, for questions only... Okay, very good. Does anybody have questions for this panel? Senator Simpson.

Ms. Dolson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, Ms. Dolson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Wolfe, and then I'm going to recognize we have our fourth panelist here. So we're going to have you answer this question, and then we're going to hear from you. Please.

Ms. Wealth.

Very good. We're going to go ahead and welcome you. That's a weird mic. Maybe flip that one. Yes, and Mr. Rogers, you've got two minutes. Glad you made it.

about how the bill is preempted by ERISA. Thank you. Very good. And we're going to start with

Thank you. Senator Benavidez.

My whole life, Senator, my whole life.

It's certainly broader than those with a collective bargaining agreement. I'm not sure. There may be a minimum cutoff, but I don't think so. I think any employer who offers a covered benefit would be covered by ERISA. But, Senator, certainly the employers covered by this bill would all be within ERISA.

And then just one follow-up. I think when I asked before, the sponsor did respond by saying this does not mandate that an employer change their benefits, but that in effect, in order to avoid the penalty, it may put them in a position to change their benefits as a result. Is that the basis of what an ERISA claim would be with regard to this bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator. You're exactly on the point. What the Fourth Circuit said was the employer under the Maryland law has a choice, but it's not a real choice. that the only rational choice for the employer under the Maryland bill or under 1327 would be to change their benefits to avoid the penalty, to avoid the fee. And so that was the analysis of the court. Not is there absolutely a choice, but is it a real choice? And a very similar bill in Maryland, the court said, that's not a real choice. This is preempted.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the committee for giving this bill, I think the attention that it deserves. I'm not sure how, maybe I do know how the vote's probably going to go today, but I do think this is a valid conversation to be having. We should be trying to do all that we can, you know, to make sure that Colorado taxpayer dollars are being spent to the best of their ability. And I think that if you have a scenario where situations are potentially being taken advantage of or you have individuals who are working full time and still qualifying for Medicaid and don't have access to other insurance, I think there's a little bit of a problem with that. And unfortunately, when that's the case, it's the taxpayer who has to pay for that. And I think that I just fundamentally disagree that that should be the case. I think that we should be looking at different solutions. And so that's what this bill is intended to do. Again, I'm going to go on the record thanking Representative Foray for the work she's done on this bill. I think that there's a lot of room for more conversations, though, in trying to figure out the solution to this. And so I would still ask for a yes vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just wanted to thank the sponsor for bringing the bill, because I agree wholeheartedly that there's a problem. If people are working full time and they don't have a livable wage, they can't afford health insurance or a number of things, there's a real problem. And while I agree with there's a reason for doing this, it's the mechanism that, I mean, I just don't believe this is the correct mechanism because we have a lot of restrictions through TABOR and other things within our budget that we are really limited in what we could do. and this kind of solution, we have to weigh the risks of is it going to be what we intend it to be and help, and I just don't believe so. So I'm going to be a no on your bill today.

Senator Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Senator Mullica. This is a good attempt. I think you're onto something here. But, you know, as I said at the beginning, I think we have to look at a comprehensive, big-picture look at how we treat with Medicaid in Colorado. I know we have a study that's already been, I don't know where it is exactly in the legislative process. So I would like to probably wait for that and include this in part of that study. also I think some of the legal arguments specifically about this proposed program resonate with me and really for me it's a it's a general concern that it seems to me like we just really hitting our enterprises all across the board hard and I worry that we playing a little too loose with them I mean I think the specific purpose of an enterprise is clear and the fees have to be relatively, you know, related to the cost of the services provided, and I worry we're getting away from the true intent of those, and eventually some company is going to get a judgment against one of our enterprises, and that would be devastating to where we are right now. So unfortunately, I will not be able to support the bill today, but I appreciate your efforts.

Minority Leader Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Mullica. We've had conversations offline before, and like my entire tenure, it feels like the healthcare industry is on the verge of complete collapse. And whether I talk to physicians or patient advocates or pharmacy or health insurance providers across the board, it just feels like we're on this teetering point of complete disruption. I wished I knew what the answer was, but I'm – and like even those individuals, the different stakeholders don't really have a clear perspective that they've shared with me anyway of how do you get better outcomes in this state when it comes to health care and creating a system that provides well for those most needy in particular. So I appreciate the effort and the conversation. Certainly you and I have talked about this before, and I'll be a no vote today.

Okay, I just want to say thank you for bringing this bill. I thought it was a great idea. And then people who are much smarter than me, I know, started saying, well, but if you do this, there are some definite downsides. Because I agree with you. People should be, they're going to work. They should be making a living wage. And those of us who are out in the world should not be subsidizing those employers. Because I think that's what's happening. But, yeah, happy to help you try and figure out where to go from here because it is a challenge. But thank you. I am unfortunately going to be a no today, but I really do thank you for bringing the bill because we need to have the conversation.

Appropriations? Yes.

Ms. Friedebescher, you please take the role. Senator Spenavides.

Wright. No. Rizel. No. Colker. Yes for today. Mollica. Yes. Simpson. No for today. Snyder. No. Marshman.

I wish I could be a yes, but I have to be a no.

Okay.

Oh, yeah.

I'll do it.

I move that we postpone indefinitely House Bill 1327 by reverse roll call.

What was the original vote count?

Two to seven. two votes in favor seven against

You can just move it from there. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, and I just wanted to show one of the audience members that I do indeed have a fiscal note of zero.

So with that, I move House Bill 261100 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Ms. Prudibish, will you please take the roll? Senator Spenavides.

Wright. Yes. Rizal. Aye. Colker. Aye. Mullica. Yes. Simpson. I'm going to be yes, but I would also note that even in the updated fiscal note, there is a departmental difference of a million and a half bucks next year and another million after that. So just highlight that it's there, but I'm a yes. Snyder. Yes. Marchman.

Was that unanimous?

I would love nothing better, but we did make a commitment to maybe run an amendment on this, so I will respectfully decline the opportunity for a consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1077 is an interesting bill on Colorado's average market rate calculations for marijuana. Currently, our AMR structure that we have established is not distinguished between outdoor and indoor production. And as a result, we have very few outdoor cultivators. And there's a lot of good reasons to have outdoor grows. And I think there's something we should be encouraging in this state. So they have razor thin margins that are very tight, and what this bill will do is give them a break on that AMR calculation so they'll have a slightly lower tax rate because growing outdoors in rural communities is a little bit harder than growing indoors in a large commercial space. and right now when we're seeing such an overall decline in that industry, it's especially noticeable with our outdoor grows. So that's the gist of the bill. We do have several amendments today, and we have one that also includes kind of the golden ticket to get us to zero on our fiscal note, and we have a memo to reflect that that we will share with the committee later today. anyways thank you all for the conversations i've had with you about this bill i will pass it over

My pleasure. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of Senate Finance. My name is Kevin Gallagher, and I represent Apothecary Farms, a vertically integrated cannabis company with outdoor cultivation operations. I respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 1077. First, I want to thank Senators Linsett and Marchman's hard work and patience for carrying this critical bill. House Bill 1077 is about tax fairness, jobs, environmental sustainability, and clear, consistent regulatory enforcement. More simply, this bill is necessary. Colorado wants outdoor cannabis cultivation to remain in existence. Today, the average market rate does not reflect what outdoor cannabis is actually worth in the market. At Apothecary Farms, it costs us about $48 to produce one pound of outdoor cannabis. Under the current AMR system, we pay about $26 per pound in state excise tax. That means outdoor cultivators like us are paying over 50% in taxes. This is not a sustainable tax structure. If a comparable tax burden were imposed on most other industries relative to production cost, it would be viewed as excessive and punitive. House Bill 1077 corrects that problem by allowing outdoor cannabis to be taxed closer to its actual market value. This matters because outdoor cultivation supports jobs, rural communities, and state tax revenue. It also supports one of the most environmentally responsible ways to produce cannabis. Outdoor cultivation relies on natural sunlight instead of high-intensity lighting and uses significantly less energy than indoor cultivation and, in our case, avoids pesticides and other synthetic chemical inputs. When the tax code treats outdoor material as though it has the same value as indoor material, it penalizes the most resource-efficient cultivation model and pushes the market towards higher cost and higher energy production Ultimately the current tax structure is making outdoor cannabis cultivation economically impossible in Colorado The result is business closures job losses reduced state tax revenue, fewer affordable, sustainable grown cannabis products in the market. Please support fairness, jobs, rural communities, tax revenue, and agricultural sustainability. Please support House Bill 1077, as well as the forthcoming amendments. Thank you, and I'm available for

Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. I'm Adam Foster, chief legal. Beg your pardon, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you. Adam Foster, chief legal officer of Silver Stem Fine Cannabis. I'm testifying on behalf of Silver Stem and the Responsible Cannabis Coalition. I'm here to testify in favor of the data disclosure provisions found at Amendment L-002. Having access to high-quality data is critical for policymaking. It lets policymakers and stakeholders correctly identify problems and reality test potential solutions. It also informs business decisions, including how to allocate capital and how to compete in a changing market. Having good data will be more important than ever, given the major changes that have occurred recently in federal law and that we will be seeing next year. Specifically, Congress changed the definition of hemp to close the intoxicating hemp loophole in November of 2025. The president rescheduled medical cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 under the Federal Controlled Substances Act last month, and the rescheduling hearing for retail cannabis under the CSA will take place this summer. 26,000 Coloradans hold occupational badges. That's just for plant-touching activities within the cannabis industry, and that industry generates $231 million in annual sales tax revenue for the state alone. Significant additional revenue goes to municipalities. Thus, the cannabis This industry is important to the state economy and the state's overall tax health. And the more high-quality data that policymakers and businesses can access, the better we can adapt to changes in federal law and make sure that Colorado has an efficient regulatory structure that will boost the economy and protect public safety. I therefore respectfully ask the committee to adopt Amendment L-002 and support data transparency. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, distinguished finance senators. It's an honor to speak with you today. I want to share a couple of comments. My name is Tom Scudder, and I've been an owner-operator in the state of Colorado now for 15 years, and I'm on the board of the Responsible Cannabis Coalition, and we're testifying with regard to a couple of the amendments that we have today. The first thing that I would like to point out is that Amendment L-006, which limits the scope of this bill to fresh frozen, is critical for our support. As has been shared several times previously by the bill's sponsors and by Kevin, this industry has gone through some pretty dramatic changes in last three four or five years We lost a tremendous amount of growers And it all goes back to the fundamental issue which is the way we manage our industry from a production management standpoint is at issue And there's too much supply and not enough demand. And that has caused prices to go down to levels that are forcing all of us to try to find some way to improve profitability. And that's one of the reasons this bill is coming forth. And so I hope that by limiting the scope here, next year we'll be able to look at the issue at a 60,000-foot level for the entire industry, for the entire state, and that's our hope. The second thing I'd like to comment on is L002 with regard to the data. We were able to put in the bill, obviously, that we need access to the methodology and the data that exists with regard to AMR. We've been attempting to do that and have been unable to do that. And a lot of that data is available, and we would like to analyze that and help come back to the table next year to address some of the more fundamental issues with regard to profitability, et cetera, in the industry and the fairness of the AMR. And we have not been able to do that because we haven't had access to data. So we're hoping that the legislative intent here will be very clear that any and all data as well as the methodology will be allowed access to the industry so we can analyze that and come forth with better solutions. I appreciate your time very much.

Thank you for being here. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the members of the committee. Sorry I couldn't be there in person. I know many of you on the committee and good to see you again. My name is Chuck Smith and I'm the CEO of Colorado Leeds, the cannabis industry's stakeholder group and trade association that represents the entire state's regulated industry. Colorado Leeds supports House Bill 1077 and the later proposed amendments, and we respectfully ask for a yes vote. This bill is an important step toward tax fairness for outdoor cultivators while also improving transparency for the public regarding how each average market rate is calculated. Outdoor cannabis is not the same commodity as been mentioned already as indoor cannabis, and the tax structure should reflect the actual market conditions for each cultivation type. House Bill 1077 helps ensure that Colorado's excise tax system is based on real-world market values rather than a framework that can unintentionally overtax outdoor cultivation. That matters because outdoor cultivators are farmers, employers, taxpayers, and contributors to rural and agricultural communities across this state. The proposed amendments also strengthen the bill by providing clearer direction around the AMR process and improve public confidence in how those rates are calculated. That transparency benefits the industry, regulators, policymakers, and the public. This is a measured, reasonable, and necessary policy change. It does not eliminate the excise tax. It simply helps ensure that tax is calculated fairly and consistently for outdoor cultivation. I do want to thank the sponsors for moving this bill forward. And Colorado Leeds respectfully asked the committee to support House Bill 1077 and the later proposed amendments. Thank you very much.

I assume that setting a market rate in outdoor areas is somewhat volatile because of weather conditions and other things. So what else?

That's the first question, so I'll ask both. And I don't know what impact having a separate outdoor market rate would do to the indoor market rate because the costs for doing that are somewhat cheaper, and what is the impact on the indoor market rate in setting their market rate?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Great question, Senator. I will try my best to answer your first question. If I haven't, I'll respectfully ask to possibly reformulate that question. But essentially, the average market rate goes off of the average price that is transferred from business A being the outdoor cultivator to business B. So business B might be a manufacturing facility. It might be a storefront. What we're looking at here is right now there's around 469 cultivations in total. and in our research just from calling the various localities that allow outdoor we're looking at around probably about 36 or so outdoor and most of those are not even in operation so when we look at how the average market rate is calculated given that there is so much saturation and indoor cannabis cultivation right now essentially outdoor folks are subsidizing the indoor cultivations But for the indoor folks, it's really only pennies on the dollar just because there's only a few of us operating that's left on outdoor. So what this change does is if outdoor has their own average market rate, we're now paying taxes that's reminiscent of the value of our product, which was the entire point of the average market rate in statute in the first place. Right now, we're essentially paying indoor prices, which obviously isn't very fair, and that's why we're seeing upwards to 50% plus in taxes there. So when we look at what's the impact for indoor grows, again, we're looking at pennies on the dollar more, but for the few outdoor folks that are left, it literally is, it saves their existential crisis at that point. they can now stay in business. It's a much larger positive impact. I hope that answered your question. If not, if you don't mind reformulating.

Other side of the question as far as what does the impact on the indoor cultivators by having a separate outdoor market rate?

Minority Leader Simpson.

It's getting to be late in the day. Minority Leader Simpson. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher, for spending time with me and talking about this. When I read the bill, we intend to create separate rates that cover indoor, unprocessed retail marijuana and outdoor, unprocessed retail marijuana. But then it says you can have one or more rates that cover indoor, unprocessed retail marijuana, including fresh, frozen marijuana that is allocated for extraction. So there's a whole set of one or more rates for that. and another set of one or more rates that cover indoor unprocessed retail marijuana that is allocated for direct sale to consumers. And then do the same thing for outdoor. It seems like this plethora of opportunities for DOR to create a variety of rates for different purposes. It seems problematic. We didn't talk about this kind of level of detail.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much, Senator Simpson. Good question. What you're reading here is very wordy, but essentially what we had to do is in statute, it's already built in that taxation division already has the autonomy to create these various different average market rates. And currently, we already do have a list of average market rates that are already available. What we wanted to do is we didn't want to eliminate that authority or that autonomy. And so what we had to do was essentially move what's already in statute around just so the new language can be competent with the updated statute, if that makes any sense. And so what this does literally, we'll say before this gets amended here, the only difference is that now you have all these established categories, there would be outdoor and indoor versions of those, and that's it. Other than that, that the bill wouldn't have done anything extra. There would have been no other additional categories. It's that we didn't want to eliminate the current categories that are already out there in the market, and we didn't want to limit the flexibility and the autonomy that DR has to create and set those average market rates.

Minority Leader Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be clear, though, that the language currently exists, and you didn't want to deviate from that, but it opens the door for DOR to establish any number of different rates that they might want to for both indoor for extractive purposes and outdoor for extractive purposes and indoor for direct-to-consumer, likewise adjust. It just seems problematic from my perspective, giving DOR a whole plethora of opportunities for a variety of different rates.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Simpson. Right now they already have that autonomy and all this does would be indoor and I understand maybe from someone who doesn quite have the same experience within the industry This is even though it might seem a lot it absolutely needed and this is why so many outdoor cultivations have gone out of business and rural jobs lost and also excise tax lost throughout the state. The state has actually lost over 70 million dollars in excise tax that goes straight to schools just over the past five months, and this is largely because the state has not addressed this average market rate value for these products. One more.

Minority Leader Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. So do they currently operate on just one, although they have the authority to craft different rates, is there currently just one rate for all grows, whether it's indoor, outdoor, whether it's fresh, frozen marijuana or direct to consumers? Mr. Gallagher.

Permission to dialogue.

Good question, Senator Simpson. There is multiple average market rates, but there is no average market rates that distinguish between outdoor and indoor, and that's the problem that we're facing today.

Great question. So right now we have rates called, for example, bud. That would be the flower that's essentially harvested that goes straight to a store shelf. You have an average market rate of trim, which is, you know, we'll say kind of the smaller parts of the plant there that generally might be allocated to a store or manufacturing facility. You also have, as you noted, right, other average market rates applicable to allocated to extraction. So we have what's called bud allocated to extraction and trim allocated to extraction. those products go directly to extraction which have an inherent lesser value than a product that goes straight to a store shelves if that makes any sense so over the number of years since we've had this recreational program the legislature has seen that we do need additional average market rates to cover these various commodities that are evolving in the industry thank you okay

Thank you, Chair. And so each one of these market rates has to be done through rulemaking, I assume. We don't grant them the ability to just craft these as willy-nilly as they want to. They have to do it through rulemaking, I assume. I'm sorry. Senator Marchman.

You're correct. They don't get to just willy-nilly change the average market rate, thankfully.

Minority Leader Simpson, do you have any additional questions?

Thank you. L005 comes at the request of DOR. It creates a definition for unprocessed outdoor marijuana and establishes a definition of natural weather conditions so that there's clarity and consistency in enforcement. Sorry.

Oh, Minority Leader Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Not necessarily a concern, but even Mr. Gallagher and I were talking about when we met earlier how the only grow operation I've ever been in was starting plants inside as an indoor operation

I just highlighting some challenges about general enforcement Senator Marchman Hey I just getting a phone a friend

Thank you, Madam Chair. On this amendment, and this is just because I'm curious, on line 19, it says cultivated using irrigation, fertigation, or similar practice. What's fertigation?

But Senator Benavides. Yeah, and I was asking, because I was curious, maybe it is a word, or did you mean fertilization? And if it did mean that, maybe you want to consider another amendment. But I don't know.

Thank you. I move L-006.

So to piggyback off of what the minority leader was asking in dialogue with Mr. Gallagher, there were a ton of ways that they could have sliced or diced the data. This is an incredibly narrowing definition, and this will narrow the scope significantly. to only indoor or outdoor fresh frozen. It also adds that it pushes the implementation date out so that they can just do this as a part of their regular rulemaking before 27. So I'd ask for any questions on that and an aye vote.

phase is closed who would like to close first senator marchman yeah i appreciate you guys taking the time to listen to the bill i appreciate the growers and industry partners who have worked with us to get this bill in a good place when it came over from the house there was some panic and um i would say there's more work to be done here i think we heard that from the folks who came today, and I look forward to looking at the regulation and taxing of cannabis in 2027, and I can't wait to see what the AMR is when they start publishing that data. So thanks for hearing the bill, and I'd urge an aye vote.

I move House Bill 1077 as amended to the Committee of the Whole.

Yes.

Marchman.

Thank you. I move to postpone indefinitely at the sponsor's request House Bill 1117.

Yes. Right. Yes.

Marchman. At the sponsor's request, aye. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your patience. We've been doing a lot of work on this bill today, and we're just closing some conversations out. So just to start off, so House Bill 1223 is about really two things principally. The first one is eliminating the downloadable software exemption. This is something that dates back until 2011, but also dates back to a time period when the way that people downloaded software was just different. And so we, in this state, enacted a regime that has differential treatment based on whether you bought your software in a store and then put, at that time, a CD in your computer and installed it, or if you just downloaded it off the Internet. Of course, fast forward 15 years and buying software at Best Buy and putting the CD in your computer and then installing it is really a thing of the past. Colorado has a very unusual regime in this respect. there's only seven states remaining that exempt electronically delivered software in the way that we do. And importantly, not all of our local governments do this either. So for the sake of, you know, administrative complexity, or really simplicity, eliminating complexity, also for the sake of just, you know, keeping up with the time, the first part of this bill eliminates that exemption so that we treat software that's installed the same whether you purchase it at a store or whether you download it. The second part of this bill deals with really a couple things, but we're going to have some amendments to bring today, so I'll just cover the family affordability credit, which is in the bill that's in front of us prior to the amendment. And that the family affordability credit is tied to revenue growth and creates a permanent version of what you all know as the FATC that mirrors the FATC in terms of eligibility and distribution but with the benefits based on how much revenue is raised by the changes to the downloadable software exemption in this bill So we've been working hard on an amendment that we will be bringing today.

thank you senator robert thank you madam chair and uh thank you to senator ball for his work on this bill uh he he summed up the uh the version of the legislation that's in front of you very well i would just note there is one small uh exemption to for the software um that if it's custom software built for a very specific purpose uh then they would that kind of software is still going to be able to get the sales tax exemption. I'll just quickly preview the amendment that we're working on that you should see very shortly. We've been trying to find a way collectively as a legislature, I think, to support our restaurant industry. Over the last few years, we were able to provide some sales tax remittance relief during the pandemic years, but we also had some changes into our tax laws during last year's special legislative session that resulted in some more conversations with the restaurants. And so that's what you're going to see in front of you in just a moment is some proposal to move some of the revenue that will be brought in by eliminating the software exemption and directing that towards sales tax remittance relief to our restaurants over the course of the year of 2027 and 2028, as well as permanent relief on some of their utility costs. So we can talk about that now or, of course, when we get to the amendment phase. But But we're excited about where this amendment is going and some of the additional support that it will bring to the bill.

Thank you. The amendment, I heard about it a little bit ago, but since you brought it up, I assume we can ask questions about it before then. is these bills sort of came together as a set, not just 23, but 21 and 22. They both, all three basically, like this one, are removing a tax expenditure and those savings from general fund to apply to the family tax credit. And I personally like that. I don't know that the other two are going to move at all. And this credit is roughly, in your bill, is roughly starting at $300 and going down, at least by looking at page four of the fiscal note. Splitting that off in half leaves very little for this tax credit. I mean, it's not even worth talking about. If it's $150, it's the max amount. Who would like to take that? Whatever amount it is, $300 still isn't very much. So why, if you're willing to give a portion of that credit, can you explain your rationale if this is all that's left of the family tax credit?

The first would be, I don think this is going to have the amount that goes towards this new FAC Right now just going off the fiscal note for instance for the budget year of 26 right now this has $44 million going towards the family affordability credit. With the provisions that we're now including for restaurants, that will go down, but I believe it will be something closer to $30 million, not half this amount. But the second thing I would say is the status quo is that this is money that does not exist because it is an exemption that's being taken by folks who are downloading software rather than purchasing it in a store. $300 is, I think we can agree, less than we would like to give to families. That amount may come down further with the amendments that we have today. Maybe it's closer to $200. But those $200 are going to make a difference. And I think given the choice between having an outdated tax regime that only seven states share with regard to software or simplifying our tax code and being able to put $200 in the pockets of Coloradans who really need the help, to me that feels like an easy policy choice.

Thank you. And I don't disagree with you that this is an unnecessary tax expenditure that we should get rid of. I am not debating that. I think I had proposed that several years ago, that we get rid of this tax credit. That said, my real question was, if we are only, again, on page 4 of the fiscal note, it says the max that could be claimed under this bill for family is $300. And so giving any $300 is not much to a family that will help them get out of poverty to some extent. I mean, that was part of the purpose of this tax credit. So removing any portion of that $300,000 seems problematic to me. And my question was the rationale of why you would want to split it off in any way to some other source when this may be the only source that goes to the family tax credit.

Thank you, Madam Chair. so I just if you look at page two of the fiscal note Senator Benavidez we estimate that the amendment that we've been working on with other members of this committee would get this would be about 15 a 15.5 million dollar reduction from what you see here so or a 15.5 million diversion from what you see here so in only starting in year 2027 so actually it wouldn't even impact the 26 27 number. So it would go from about $92 to about $77 million. So it's not half. It's not even close to half. The rest would still go to the family affordability credit. The other very blunt reason, if I may say, is the gentleman two floors down from here. We are trying to turn a bill into law. And these are the changes that I believe need to be made to make that happen.

just one more and doing the math it cuts it by a third basically and so that means the credit would be down from max of to about give or take a few dollars And honestly I think the person you referring to has other options and shouldn't guide our decisions on bills.

Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Patrick Boyle. I represent the Colorado Competitive Council, a statewide business organization, and we are formally in opposition to House Bill 1223. However, for some weeks now, we've been in discussions with the Department of Revenue and others to find a way to put rails on this particular proposal. I can tell you the history of this goes back more than 25 years. The first time I recall the business community disputing with the Department of Revenue about sales taxation of downloadable software, or at any rate, software that was not purchased off the shelf, was in about the year 2000. That is because the Emergency Sales Tax Act of 1935, which is the basis for the state sales tax, has historically been imposed on tangible personal property purchased at retail, and the dispute between the Revenue Department and business was over whether downloaded software was tangible. and this bill would resolve that dispute. And with the amendment, the business community is content, or at least we at Colorado Competitive Council are content, to have a truce and move forward, and we would no longer be in opposition to the bill.

Got it. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Megan Dollar. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. We are currently opposed to House Bill 1223. However, the chamber has worked with the proponents of the bill, and I want to thank them as well as the sponsors for their willingness to clarify what negotiated license agreement means in the bill. That is a big deal for our members. So once L015 is adopted, I will make a recommendation to move our position to neutral.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin. In Mashki, I live in Boulder and represent myself. Our lives are conducted increasingly online through computers and subsequent programs, and depending on what computer system you use, almost no software is available physically anymore. Coloradans have had to endure an increasing amount of sales tax and fees. Low-income families have to buy software, too, and putting a new tax on software will decrease affordability. Today it's software, but what service or product will be subject to additional taxation next session? The action of this legislature has made Colorado less affordable, and I am one of the 83% of parents cited in the ledge debt concerned that my kids won't be able to stay in Colorado. The difference, however, is in what I see as the solution. Instead of a new sales tax, I want to address an alternative revenue stream to help Colorado families instead of targeting businesses with this suite of bills. From 2015 to 2025, HICPF spending doubled from $8 billion to $16 billion while quality of care went down and fraud increased. At the same time, the state budget grew by 64%. I don't know about you, but my budget wasn't allowed to grow 64 to 100% in the last decade. according to the information from jbc and hick puff medicaid enrollment dropped around 1.7 million in 2023 to 1.2 million coloradans in 2025 but spending went up from 14.68 billion dollars to 15.96 billion dollars in the same time frame the legislature created and or amplified these medical expenses by passing 182 new health care bills in the last seven years that expanded hick puff raised insurance costs and is costing at least $850 million per year in state spending. Beyond that, a total of 350 bills have directly or indirectly affected hospitals, which also increases medical costs. Dealing with inflated costs and wasted money is necessary, and this windfall could come from reforms and be repurposed to support families. In the end, I ask for your no vote on HB 26-12-23. I don't think it helps affordability. Thank you.

I see that. Okay. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Dana Weiss, and I'm a resident of Windsor for now. I'm here to represent myself as an owner of several businesses in opposition to SB 1223. Shortly after graduating from Colorado State University, I placed a huge bet on myself by investing in my first business in the print industry. Some of you may understand this, but as a young female, I wasn't always taken seriously. But that just motivated me to work even harder, put in long hours, and pursue every opportunity to make up for starting at a disadvantage. After my husband and I made the decision to start a family, my professional aspirations became all the more challenging as we raised two bright, confident young ladies. who, and they're at that time, competed with the high standards that my clients had come to expect, not to mention that I needed to maintain my own physical and mental health. As our family matured and my businesses flourished, we made the decision to launch a second business, this time in the midst of a pandemic just to add complexity. The new business demanded even more of my time, but I hunkered down, put in the long hours, and attended to my own personal wellness as I battled breast cancer. Woodhouse Spa has been open for five years now and it employs 60 plus associates, not with jobs, but as an opportunity to have career paths that lead to professional and personal enrichment that allows our associates to sharpen their skills and acumen Because of the tremendous success of Woodhouse we now in the process of launching yet another business that will have three offices employing approximately 50 professionals We are constantly looking for opportunities for our employees to grow and prosper as they navigate their own careers. At this time, we have not yet decided where those businesses will be located. The unprecedented nature of SB1223 is a threat to my livelihood. Though I am not a lawyer, this bill seems to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of the taxpayers bill of rights enshrined within our own state's constitution unlike 1221 and 1222 which employ a clever loophole to raise taxes on businesses without a vote of the people this bill goes a step further in creating a tax on software services that my businesses rely upon that will increase my cost

Yes. All three of my businesses are in the service industry. Should SB1223 pass, the door will be left wide open to extend sales tax obligations to all services in order to expand government revenue streams.

I urge you to vote no on SB1223.

My name is Jill Rowan.

And thank you for the questions. I was just talking to the, just speaking with our drafter also. So a couple points. The first is you asked about this being something new.

So that does go on permanently. I sorry Thank you Madam Chair That does go on permanently Currently the section right above that in statute has very similar language but at 55 So right now you can write off 55 of your utility costs This increases that to 100%, and you're right, there's no end date on this. We're going to get a new fiscal note that we will have in front of Appropriations Committee, but what I have been told is this will be approximately $2 million to $4 million a year.

With regard to the restaurants, that's only for those nine months that are indicated, and then that goes away? That's correct.

I think $10 to $11 million a year. Don't quote me on that. We can have maybe more discussion about the amendment during the amendment phase, or are there things that we need from the witnesses?

Just one question. The senator's question brought up something to me. If this bill covers, I know it covers downloadable software, it would be taxable. That exemption would go away. But as things are changing, I mean, even the way we watch TV and we buy movies, would it cover rentals or subscriptions to software as far as being taxable or not?

And I do have one question for you guys. So back to the 6% number we heard about earlier, that this affects 6% of families. I mean, when you're talking about 6% of families in poverty, that actually sounds like a pretty significant impact to me. So I'm wondering if you could help me understand what that 6% of raising children out of poverty and families out of poverty means to the economy as a whole.

Right. But my question really, and I appreciate that, and my question is really more to, yeah, you're helping 6% of families come out of poverty. But when you're talking about that, I believe there's an impact that is more broad in the community. For instance, people might not be having to take advantage of other things in the social safety network. And people, other families are also benefiting because it's boosting the economy around them. So I was wondering if you could speak to the overall advantages in that sense.

Right. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we'll start with L20, and Senator Snyder was going to offer this amendment, and Senator Ball has a few other amendments of more technical nature that are coming around too.

Who would like to tell us about L-20?

Are there any questions, concerns about L20?

Oh, no, I said are there any questions or concerns about it? Okay. It has been moved. And there is an objection to it passing, so Senator Rudabush, sorry to demote you. Ms. Rudabush, will you please take the roll? Senators Benavides? No.

Yes. Brazil? Yes. Colker? Yeah. Simpson? Aye. Snyder? Yes. Weissman? Yes. Marchman? Aye. Madam Chair? Yes. L-20 passes on an 8-1 vote. Is that correct?

Tell us about L-15.

Senator Marchman, Vice Chair Marchman.

Okay, but is there objection to L-15? I'd say yes. Ms. Rydvush, will you please take the role? Senators, Benavides.

Wright. Yes. Grazell. Yes. Colker. Aye. Simpson. Aye. Snyder. Aye. Weissman. Yes.

No. Madam Chair. Yes. I believe that passes 8-1 as well. Okay. And last but not least, L13.

Great.

Questions concerned about L-013? Okay. Is there any objection to L013? Seeing no objection, L013 is adopted. Do you have any additional amendments? Members on this side of the dais, do you have any amendments? Okay. Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Who would like to close first? Senator Roberts.

Excellent. Okay, Senator Ball.

Okay. Any closing comments on this bill? Senator Benavidez.

Okay, any other comments before we vote? Vice Chair Marchman, would you like to move the bill?

Thank you. Ms. Rita Bush, will you take the roll? Senators, Benavides.

No. No. Colker. Aye. Simpson. No. Snyder. Aye. Weissman. Yes. Marchman.

Madam Chair. Yes. You are on your way to appropriations on a vote of 6 to 3. Thanks for hanging with us through an interesting day. Yes. There we go. And last but not least, on our calendar for today, we have Senator Wiseman with HB 26-1289. Thanks for joining our committee for the latter half of the, I don't know, half, hopefully not half, but the latter part of the day. Senator Wiseman. Senator Wiseman, are you ready? Mic check. Okay. Yes. Please join us and tell us about your bill. All right. Committee, I know it's been a long day, and I think you had a long Tuesday as well, so I'll try to be pretty brief here. You just considered a couple of big proposals in tax. 1289 is really meant to be not that. It meant to be a collection of small changes I not going to go through section by section I take questions to the extent that the committee would like I am passing out two amendments as well Broadly speaking, what's in 1289 comes from one of a couple of places. We are either responding to some of the work that has come out of our tax expenditure profile, analyses by nonpartisan staff at the Office of the State Auditor. I know some members of the committee have their own history in that. In some cases, we are looking at how our tax practices compare to how other states do things comparably. For example, corporate taxation. In some cases, we look at model tax policies from organizations like the MTC, the Multistate Tax Commission. And finally, we just have to react to evolving circumstances. such as changes in markets and technology, factors bearing on consumer demand and need, changes in federal policy. In the interest of time, I will leave it there and stand for questions. Thank you. Questions for the sponsor? Vice Chair Marchman.

Senator Weissman. It did. That's a potentially vast question to answer. I will try to be very brief right now. A few things. You're getting at a fundamental question in our tax law. It's not really raised here. I mean, there's a little bit in the way of decoupling here. It's mostly not what we're doing. I think that question was put more profoundly in one of the other bills, 1221 or 22, that proposed some decouples from recent big OBA changes. There was an analysis by the task force that was attached to the tax policy interim committee that we've now shut down for the last interim and this coming interim. They looked in some depth at this question of an AGI base versus an FTI base. If any member here really wants to get deep in that question, I would recommend reading that document. A couple of challenges in making that move. One, it's not inherently revenue positive, negative, or neutral. It's a policy choice that depends on what other policy choices might be made. When we say that we will start our tax returns here with FTI, we inherit a bunch of deductions. When you're an AGI state, you say no to those deductions, but the AGI states, which are 30-plus of them that have income tax at all, have their own deductions. So they make policy choices after saying we going to start with AGI I think a real challenge for us at least in the near term is that operationally it is a lot more complex to start with AGI There are problems, as we've seen, being an FTI state, being a dynamic conformity state, one of the few, actually. It does make administration of the system simpler for our Department of Revenue. Some estimates I've heard are that if we were to go to AGI, we'd have to triple the staff over at DOR just to administrate that system, which obviously we are not in a fiscal position to do anytime soon. So there's a very big conversation to have there. It is probably a multi-year conversation, and what that bill would look like to draft would make this one look pretty thin. Other questions for the bill's sponsor? Senator Benavides.

Senator Weisman. Thank you. I guess I'll say two things about that, and I'll try to find the FTI to AGI report here. It's here somewhere. One, I think we have some questions-only witnesses from DOR, if they're still available at this hour. I did see them in the sign-up, too. just to zoom out of that part of the bill. I said a minute ago in response to the vice chair's question, there's a limited amount of decoupling going on here. This actually is that limited amount. There's a federal tax break, if you will, for investing in opportunity zones. The concept that's like our enterprise zone and state laws to try to drive investment to needful areas, all well and good. Part of the problem is you can get a Colorado tax break for investing in opportunity zones that aren't even in Colorado. We should not be incentivizing that. Get a federal tax break as a Colorado taxpayer for putting your money in Kansas. Okay. We in Colorado should be incentivizing investment in Colorado and nowhere else. So that's what that part of the bill is doing in concept. DOR may have more to add on drafting. Other questions? Senator Benavides.

On the home caregiver, you told me that may be going away. Senator Wiseman. Yeah, members, to this point, there was an amendment added on second reading in the House to add up a whole new tax credit. Seems to have been drafted on the fly. My purpose is noble. It's trying to use the tax policy to support IDD caregivers. We've heard a lot about that this session. Subsequent to the bill coming over from the House, I have heard just a lot of concerns about how this was drafted from HICPF, from DOR, even from nonpartisan staff. Part of one of the amendments that I will get to later is to simply remove this. this is too big of a piece of policy to try to bash out and do right in the last couple of days, worthy though the end goal is. So that section of the bill would amend out with one of the amendments. Thank you. Minority Leader Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Weissman. Just high level, I don't want to dig into the lengthy bill or the fiscal note, but the summary of the fiscal note says there's a $3.6 million negative impact in the current fiscal year, 25-26, and for 26-27 includes appropriations totaling $1.9 million to various agencies. Like, again, without going through the 28-page fiscal note, do you have an observation or something you could share with about that kind of magnitude of impact? Senator Wiseman. I guess three comments. High level, the bill is not trying to be very net negative or net positive. It's trying to catch different parts of our tax code up to best practice or reality. General statement two, the bill's been changing a lot. The fiscal's been changing a lot. I've already been in touch with Mr. Sobetsky from nonpartisan staff in anticipation of some of the amendments and how there will be an updated note after we adopt these amendments. Addressing the IDD provision will impact part of that. My attention has also been called, I don't have this amendment today. We'll try to get it pulled together for subsequent steps should the committee allow that to happen. You'll see in the bill some changes to the wildfire prevention mitigation measures credit. But I think given the general fund picture in fiscal 26, it may make sense to move that out one more year. So that's only six digits. So that's one change I'm contemplating in cognizance of the present year reality. I hope that helps. Thank you. Further questions for our bill sponsor? Senator Kolker. Thank you. I'm sorry, I might have missed in case you answered this question. Looking at the fiscal note, I want to make sure I'm on the right bill. The current year fiscal note says general fund revenue is a negative $3.6 million. And for $26.27, we're at $10.7. But we have cash funds of six. So these are the, I just want to make sure these are the total tax expenditures. Is that 10.7, all the tax expenditures? And I can look further. I just saw this and thought I'd ask, if you don't know. Our fiscal, or Mr. Svetsky, I don't know if you're the fiscal analyst on this, has his hand up if you would like to bring him forward. And I'm sorry, Senator, I was going to ask you to restate your question. I'm looking at the May 6 fiscal note written to the re-engrossed. I didn't catch exactly what number or sum of numbers. So for 2526, it has negative 3.6 million state revenue. So I think that's current credits on page one. Page one, yeah. And then the expenditures and the revenue don't match up, and I was just wondering if they're supposed to match up. And Mr. Sebecki, are you? A couple things. Senator Weissman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry. Goal has not been here to make expenditures and revenue exactly line up to the dollar. that was a policy choice made in the other bills in terms of how the FAC was written to the other stuff. That's never been the design here. Again, we're not aiming to bring revenue in necessarily. We're not aiming to spend a particular amount of revenue. There's not a big sort of economic subsistence tax credit in here. As to current year, where we have an income tax credit available for tax year 25 or 26, including as amended in the bill, half of each of those would apportion into current year. And again, the note will catch up after what we do here today, and I think that I will aim to further adjust the wildfire one to reduce current year impact. Senator Colker, did you have a follow-up? Okay. Well, with that, we do have, I believe, let's see, actually, Senator Wiseman, we have seven people signed up against, one in amend, ten for, and a bunch of questions only. So, and I know one of the four wants, the Colorado Energy Office all wants to come up together, which is a mixture of those. Who would you like to have testify first, or would you like people interspersed? Thank you. Maybe we can start with proponents and then go to opponents. There are questions, folks, I think, signed up from multiple state agencies that have been involved in putting together one part or the other of this bill. Maybe they could be called up last or at your discretion, Madam Chair, if questions are coming up that maybe they could assist with, just maybe bring them up wherever it seems organic to do so. Okay. We will do our best then. We are going to start with Travis Madsen. Is somebody here for Caroline Netter? Are you going to speak on her behalf, Ms. White? Will Tour? Oh, no. We're going to call him up with the Colorado Energy Office panel. I'm sorry. Catherine Ardoin, Wendy Moschetti, and Anjali Prasertong. I think that will be our first panel. If we don't fill out that panel, we will continue to call names. Okay. Mickey Davis. Shea Sheehan. Chandler Sanchez Daisy Sweeney Okay. So we have, I believe, two of our witnesses in the four position. So, Ms. White, would you like to begin?

Thank you. Please hold for questions. And we're going to go to Mickey Davis. Please proceed. You have two minutes. Hi.

Che Sheehan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm actually, my name is Che Sheehan. I'm a senior program manager with Oedit. I was actually here for questions-only testimony. Oh, okay. We will

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Chandler Sanchez, and I am a transportation researcher with the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. We are a non-profit organization working to save people money and reduce pollution. I am here in support of HB 1289. Over the past decade, SWEEP has worked with this legislation to make Colorado a leader in energy efficiency and pollution prevention, saving residents and businesses hundreds of millions of dollars, strengthening our economy, improving public health, and protecting our climate. I'm particularly proud of the state's electric vehicle and heat pump tax credits. The EV tax credit helped make Colorado one of the top two electric vehicle states in 2025, just behind California, making us more resilient to gasoline price spikes like the one that we're experiencing right now. The heat pump tax credit is helping to make efficient use of clean energy to cool and heat our homes and buildings the norm rather than just the exception. However, these tax credits aren't working as well this year. First, the state's tough fiscal conditions resulted in the value of the credits being cut in half. Second, Congress passed a budget bill that repealed federal support for EVs, heat pumps, and other energy efficiency tools while also cutting into the state revenue. While Colorado alone cannot fully compensate for that bill, we can and we must adjust course in response. HB 1289 helps accomplish that. In particular, I appreciate that the bill boosts passenger EV tax credit while focusing support on the affordable end of the market where it can make the most difference in helping lower and moderate income Coloradans save money on gas. I also appreciate that the bill removes fiscal triggers for the innovative clean truck credit, the electric bike tax credit, and the state heat pump credit to the value set in HB 23-1272, which will make them much more effective. Doing all of this while closing tax loopholes is just smart policy I appreciate the work of the bill sponsors the administration and stakeholders to responsibly address our fiscal challenges while also continuing to make progress on key priorities I respectfully ask for a yes vote Thank you for your time

you're in a good place. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I am with the Office of Economic Development and International Trade, and I am here today to answer any questions about one of the proposed amendments for this bill about the film festival tax credit. Okay, thank you. So with that, members,

Thank you. Chairs, members of the committee, my name is Daisy Sweeney, Director of Nutrition Incentives at Nourish Colorado, testifying in support of House Bill 1289. Nourish Colorado worked closely with partners and sponsors to develop and pass HB 22-1380 and House Bill 23-1008 to create the Community Food Access Program as it is now. The intent of HB 23-1008 was clear. Increase the capacity of small local retailers to store and sell nutritious food. Lower prices for consumers. Reduce food insecurity.

Vice Chair Marchman.

Mr. Bailey.

Thank you. Uh-huh. Thank you very much. Other questions for this panel? Okay. Seeing none, thank you very much. We really appreciate you being here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. I believe we have one final panel. We're going to call up Will Tuer, Quinn Antis, Mike Salisbury, Will Maness Josh Pens and I believe Michelle Meyer is no longer online Also a bunch of those witnesses are remote so this will also serve as our last call for witnesses. If anybody is in the room who wishes to testify, who has not signed up, this is your time to come forward and take one of those empty chairs in front of me. And I think all of our witnesses are online. So we're going to start with you, Mr. Tour. Thank you, Chair Kipp and members of the committee.

Yeah. And if you could just wrap up, that would be excellent. Thank you.

I believe everybody else who is online is there for questions only. Can we just go through everybody who is online and you can tell us who you are and what questions you would be qualified to answer. We're going to start with you, Mr. Penns.

I think are all of them, so I'll do my best. Okay. I know you always do a good job of that, Mr. Penz. And let's see. And we have Quinn Antis.

Great. Thank you so much. And then last but not least, we also have, did I get, no, Will Marines, I believe.

Can't read it this time Great pronunciation A lot of folks get that wrong

Thank you very much I do appreciate it And members Do we have questions for this panel? and I do have one question and I don't know that any of you are the people who would be able to answer it but there was an illusion that there have been previous agreements made that with previous policy that this legislature has passed that are being broken by this bill and I would like to understand if you are aware of any of those and if you could help to enlighten me and that that would be helpful okay not seeing any hands that might be more of a question um for the sponsor or to follow up offline but thank you so much any other questions members thank you all for hanging out all day with us to testify. We really appreciate it. Oh, wait.

Mr. Sebeck, actually, before we leave you guys, because this could trigger other questions, Mr. Sebecki, apparently we have questions for you, if you don't mind coming forward. Thank you.

for being here. Senator Colker. First of all, I want to say, Mr.

It starts on page 12, but the itemized list is more apparent on page 13. Thank you. Senator Colker. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kolker, yes, that's correct.

Mr. Sebevsky. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Senator Colker.

Madam Chair, Senator Colker, yes, that's correct.

And really, I'm probably more of an amend. And my name is Greg Fulton. I'm the president of the Colorado Motor Care Association, and I'm here on behalf of our several hundred trucking companies in the state, actually, who have over 150,000 employees. When we're talking about an amendment, I would just say that we are opposing the reduction in terms of the fuel tax allowances And let me say that distributors are our partners The reality is they take the risks actually in terms of the fuel price at this time To be honest with you, I can't even believe that we're at a point right now where we're even considering doing this. Let me say how bad a situation is in our industry. We're now going into the fourth year of a freight recession. Profit margins are down by 90%. We lost 100,000 companies for the last three years in terms of the country, and we've had 200,000 jobs lost in that at a period of time as well. Things are getting worse. Companies are closing, and now we have $5 diesel. And so what we're really talking about here is a situation where we have the worst case ever, I think, in history that I know of, where we end up actually putting actually fuel distributors at risk actually because of bad debt. It's not because people want to go under. It's because the prices are moving too fast. Secondly, let me note that the fact is, is that those prices do not just actually get absorbed. They get passed down. And when we have record high diesel prices, which is already stretching us, what we're really talking about here is actually talking about fuel tax or having a tax increase here on top of this and increasing the price of fuel. I would just ask that you reconsider this. The fact is, as Mr. Bailey noted, and we've worked closely with them, right now we pay 35 percent of our industry of all the highway in terms of transportation taxes and fees in the state. And we're only 8 percent of the traffic. We would ask that you remove actually and reconsider and remove the reduction in the fuel tax allowances. Thank you very much.

The way I'm reading the film festival credit, it looks like if it was on or after January 1, 27, this was before, through January 1, 2037, it was from tax years for 27 to 36, but now you've changed it so it's for tax years 26 to 35. Is that, because I'm wondering if I'm reading that correctly, does that raise a retroactive issue to go back to January 1 of 26, when we're in the middle of 26?

Senator Benavides. No that wasn exactly my question it actually line 20 that you changing it from January 1 2027 that four tax years commencing on January 1 2026 So just for that year I'm asking about, because we're in the middle of 26, and you're writing this so it includes this year when before it didn't include this year.

Senator Benavidez? So I guess before this amendment, it didn't apply to this tax year, reading the language that is crossed out. This credit did not apply to 2026 as a tax year. And with this change, it now applies to this tax year. And I don't know what's always been done around, but I guess, And maybe Mr. Sebesky is following what I'm saying and could answer as well, because I'm getting to if we add a year and we're in the middle of that year, does that make it part retroactive?

Senator Benavides. And I didn't necessarily want to go down the rabbit hole, but I would argue that it does create a new obligation because this is a tax expenditure, and by allowing the credit for another year that wasn't allowed in the existing statute, it creates an obligation on the state to do that. That's neither here nor there. And I don't know if this could be researched with an attorney on the legislative staff because I read line 21, there is allowed a credit. It's not just allowing this tax certificate. It is allowing the credit. And the way the statute read before, the credit was only allowed for years starting January 27. And it's amending it to allow a previous year. So I don't know the answer. That's why I'm raising the question. and I'm not sure why we would do that or why we did it.

Yes.

Marchman.

I'm sorry.

I'm on page 13. Do I just add the numbers to the bottom, and that will basically give me the difference? So if I'm looking at 26, 27, I'm at negative 10.1 at the bottom, and then I add 12.9. So I'll have a little bit of credit.

We love shortcuts. Thank you, Mr. Szebetsky.

Thank you, Madam Chair. move L68 to House Bill 1289?

Yeah, so thank you, Madam Chair. I had a chance to visit McLean Distribution this summer off session and got to witness firsthand the government tax stamp that is added there. And I have to say that the specific area within the warehouse that this happens is highly secure. You have to have multiple levels of security to even gain access. Employees just aren't allowed to roam into that area. It's completely locked up. And there's a very specific approved device that applies a tax stamp on every single pack of cigarettes. It is a very involved process. And to me, I looked at that in amazement and I said, wow, normally this would be a job that the government does. This is the government applying a tax stamp saying that this pack of cigarettes has tax attached to it. It was impressive and it was quite the experience to see that. and to me you net that up and you say okay well this is a private company that is doing something that the government would normally do and they're doing it because they're being offered a credit to do that there is an offset i've seen a fiscal memo that represents the dollars that this amendment represents it significant And so with the bill we are removing the payment from the government to the distributor for doing the government work And so this amendment was essentially go to table 2C on page 14 and there is one line item that says cigarette stamps vendor discount. If you want to know the price tag of it, that's exactly what it is. And so if the government is going to not pay McLean for doing the work that it does for them, then the government should do the work themselves. Really, really simple concept. And essentially what we're looking at here in 1289 is we're asking a private company to do the work of the government and having been paying them to do that work. and now we're just saying we're not going to pay you to do it anymore. We expect you to do it for free. So with that, I would recommend a favorable consideration of L-68. Thank you.

No.

I just want to thank the sponsor for bringing this. I mean, I know I have and others here have struggled with the large number of tax expenditures that we have, whether they're credits or deductions, that have resulted in our tax system in this state. Even though we have a flat rate of tax, we have a regressive tax system. And the people that make the lowest amount of income pay a disproportionate amount of tax compared to those with higher income because of the utilization of tax expenditures. As a result, removing tax expenditures, and I know some have been on there for years and years. I mean, I'm surprised one didn't come up, which was a tax credit for wine, religious wine that's bought. It's like $3,600, but we want to keep it because we've used it forever and a day. And I know people are, they love the tax credits or the deductions they have gotten over the years, but it is the cause of, again, our regressive tax system. And until we fix those, we're always going to be in a bind. So I applaud the sponsor for bringing this forward and doing this, and I'm in strong support of the bill.

And I too appreciate you all of the work you've done and I've learned a lot. I did oppose the vendor fee changes that we made because of the impact on small businesses during the special session. And similarly, I am going to not be able to support this bill just because of the business impact. So I really appreciate you bringing this. I wish that we could have just had kind of the line item veto. I love the EV credits and all the other things. But I appreciate you very much, Senator Wiseman. Thank you.

Yes.

Marchman. With respect, no. Madam Chair.