Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 070

Here. Baisley. Ball. Benavidez. Bridges. Bright. Carson. Catlin. Cutter. Danielson. Excuse. Doherty. Here. Exum. Frizzell, Gonzalez, Hendrickson, Judah, Kip, Kip, Kirkmeyer, Folker, Lindstedt, Liston, Marchman, Mullica, Mullica, Pelton B, Pelton R, Rich, Roberts, Mr. Rodriguez. Simpson. Snyder. Sullivan. Wallace. Weissman. Zamora Wilson. Mr. President.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate Journal of Monday, March 23rd, 2026, be approved as corrected by the Secretary.

Correctly engrossed. Senate Bill 83 and 122. Correctly revised. House Bill 1039, 1098, 1180, 1189, and 1192. House Right Resolution 1022. Correctly re-revised. House Bill 1191. Correctly enrolled. Senate Bill 450. Committee reports. Committee on Education after consideration on the merits of the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1090 be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation and with a recommendation that it be placed on the consent calendar. Committee on Judiciary after consideration on the merits of the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1232 be amended as follows and as so amended be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation.

Resolutions.

The motion is to proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. All those in favor say aye. Was there an aye?

Oh, okay. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. And that motion is adopted. We will proceed out of order. Consideration of resolutions.

Senator Judah Thank you Mr President Members we are here to introduce Senate Resolution 004 and ask that it be read at length And we move it.

And we move it.

Mr. Schaffler, please read SR004 at length. Whereas conflict resolution encompasses many forms of responses to differences, such as mediation, arbitration, facilitation, collaborative decision-making, ombudsperson activities, and restorative justice practices, and whereas these conflict resolution processes empower individuals, families, communities, organizations, and businesses to foster communication and design solutions that are acceptable and responsive to the needs and interests of all parties involved, And whereas conflict resolution is taught and practiced by professionals in many school systems and universities throughout Colorado and the world as a peaceful, nonviolent way of resolving disputes. And whereas community-based conflict transformation programs work to strengthen local relationships by fairly and equitably resolving neighborhood and community conflicts and opening dialogues grounded in reason and mutual dignity and respect. And whereas associations of conflict professionals promote peaceful and creative resolutions to disputes as well as develop proficient conduct standards. And whereas alternative dispute resolution, ADR, and restorative justice practices bring cost and time savings to the handling of disputes in the state court system and cost avoidance to the correction systems. And whereas additional benefits through conflict resolution practices include creative and more durable interest-based resolution, increased satisfaction for the parties who are active participants and ultimate decision-makers in the negotiation, and the transformation of personal relationships, thereby decreasing the likelihood of further disputes or strained relations. and whereas the Colorado General Assembly's exemplary collaboration across party lines to enact sound conflict resolution policy has a very real impact on the behaviors of all Coloradans, our economic progress, and community relationships throughout the state and whereas Governor Jared Polis has proclaimed the month of October to be conflict resolution month in the state of Colorado. Now, therefore, it be resolved by the Senate of the 75th General Assembly of the state of Colorado that we, the members of the Colorado Senate, join the governor in recognizing October as Conflict Resolution Month in Colorado. Two, that we invite Coloradans to create events that celebrate and promote the use of productive conflict transformation and dispute resolution in their communities. Three, that we call upon leaders across the state to use Conflict Resolution Month in Colorado as an occasion to discuss the principles and use the practices of conflict resolution in their homes, schools, neighborhoods, congregations, and workplaces. Four, that we encourage all residents of the state to reflect upon conflicts present in their own lives and to work to resolve those conflicts responsibly and peacefully. Five, that in conjunction with the conflict resolution month in Colorado, we encourage educational programs that emphasize the benefits of facilitative, interest-based, party-centered, and restorative practices. And we hope to bring these benefits to the attention of judges and other officials and staff in the state court system, state executive branch, and local governments throughout Colorado. And sixth, that we encourage the participation of judges and other officials and staff in the state judicial branch, state executive branch, and local governments in celebrating and observing conflict resolution month in Colorado. Be it further resolved that copies of this Senate resolution be sent to Governor Jared Polis, Chief Justice Monica M. Marquez, Colorado Supreme Court Sharon Sturgis, Office of Dispute Resolution in the Colorado Judicial Department, Matt Reed, Colorado Restorative Justice Coordinating Council, and to each member of Colorado's congressional delegation.

Thank you, Mr. President. Today on the floor we welcome and extend our gratitude to those joining us on the Senate floor today who are a conflict resolution professionals conflict facilitators coaches consultants mediators arbitrators and restorative justice practitioners I would also like to note that we have the Honorable Senator Linda Newell here in our presence who leads a lot of this work These are the professionals who work behind the scenes as neutral parties to help facilitate resolving, transforming, and healing conflicts through our state. Now more than ever, we need to collectively reaffirm these principles to advance the understanding and use of positive dispute resolution in legislative and community work and our personal lives. Everyone is welcome to join in this effort to foster considerate conscious communication in our homes, workplace, communities, and schools. In 2009, Colorado became the first state in the nation to have its state legislature, via Senator Linda Newell, and Governor Bill Ritter, proclaim a whole month dedicated to a peaceful way of managing conflict.

Welcome. Further discussion. There is further discussion. Senadora Gonzalez.

Very good. Seeing no further discussion the motion is the adoption of SR004 Are there any no votes With a vote of 34 absent and one excused SR is adopted

Seen no conflict or objection.

Thank you. Very good.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move to lay over House Joint Resolution 1017 until Monday, March 30th.

Mr. Schroff, would I please you to titles of all the bills on the consent calendar. House Bill 1180 by Representative Marshall and Gonzales-R and Senator Henderson, concerning the continuation of the Business Intelligence Center Advisory Board and in connection therewith, implementing the recommendation of the Department of Regulatory Agency's 2025 Sunset Report by repealing the Advisory Board. House Bill 1189 by Representatives Espinosa and Senator Snyder, concerning property held by a community property spouse subject to the Uniform Community Property Disposition at Death Act.

Any discussion on any of the bills? Seeing none. The motion is the passage of all the bills on third reading of bills, consent calendar. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 1 excused, House Bill 1180 is passed. Co-sponsors.

With a vote of 34 ayes, 0 no, 0, absolute excuse, House Bill 1189 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators.

Third, we enter the bill's final passage.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. I move to lay over Senate Bill 66 until Wednesday, March the 25th.

Mr. Schauffer, please read the title of House Bill 1192. House Bill 1192 by Representatives Phillips and Barone and Senator Exum concerning restructuring the Homeless Prevention Activities Program. Senator Exum. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1192 by Representatives Phillips and Barone and Bill 1192 on third reading final passage.

Mr. Schaffer, I'll please read the title of Senate Bill 122 Senate Bill 122 by Senators Pelton R. and Roberts and Representatives Winner T. and Lukens concerning liquid fuels and in connection therewith increasing the maximum amount of liability of the petroleum storage tank fund for individual incidents and allowing the director of the Division of Oil and Public Safety to adopt a rule or issue policy guidance that provides exceptions to specific requirements established at an ASTM standard for petroleum products. Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 122 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schaffler, please view the title of House Bill 1039 House Bill 1039 by Representatives Carter and Ricks and Senators Judah and Weissman concerning requirements for municipal jails Senator Weissman Thanks, Mr. President. We move for the adoption of House Bill 1039 on third reading and final passage and ask for a yes vote.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 83. Senate Bill 83 by Senators Weissman and Frizzell and Representatives Soper and Camacho concerning implementation of the Committee on Legal Services recommendations in connection with the legislative review of state agencies' rules. Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 26083 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1098. House Bill 1098 by Representative Brooks and Stuart R. and Senators Frizzell and Kipp concerning modifications to the Colorado Public Trustee Act related to foreclosure procedures. Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 26-1098 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you.

Now, Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. Pursuant to Senate Rule 21C, I move the Senate grant leave to the Joint Budget Committee to meet while the Senate is in session.

Senator Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of general orders, second reading of Bill's consent calendar. You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? No. Motion is adopted. The Senate will resolve itself. Committee of the Whole Consideration. Secondary Bill is consent counter. Senator Dora Gonzalez will take the chair. Get up in here. Committee will come to order. The coat rule is relaxed for everyone in the chamber. Mr.

No, Mr. Schaffler. Will you please read all the titles to all the bills on the general order, second reading of bills, consent calendar. House Bill 1070 by Representative Hartzell and Brown and Senators Joseph and Frizzell, Judah and Frizzell, concerning third-party network lease agreements for dental services. House Bill 1034 by Representatives Johnson and Lukens and Senators Peltner and Henderson, concerning modifications to environmental standards for certain irrigation equipment House Bill 1205 by Representatives Velasco and Morrow and Senators Cutter and Baisley concerning changes to state law to reflect the federal expansion of good neighbor authority agreements

Is there any discussion on any of the committee reports? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption on the committee reports. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The aye has it. We will adopt those reports. Is there any discussion on any of the bills? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of all the bills on the general order's second reading of bill's consent calendar. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. Those bills are adopted.

Motion is to rise and report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it, and we will rise and report.

Senator Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. President. that committee met and considered some bills.

The motion is the adoption of the committee of the whole report. Are there any no votes? with a vote of 34 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, 1 excuse, committee of the whole report is adopted.

General orders, second reading of the bill, Senator Noda Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate to resolve itself into the committee of the whole for general order, second reading of bills. You vote the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Pose no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. The Senate to resolve itself, committee of the whole, and Senator Lucas-Ellis will take the chair. Committee will come to order, and the coat rule is relaxed for everyone in the chamber.

The motion is to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 128. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. We will proceed out of order.

To the Finance Committee report.

Go ahead.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Aye. The ayes have it, and that committee report is adopted. To the bill.

Cool, cool, cool. You love to see it. Further discussion?

Thank you. Further discussion?

But for me, the biggest problem, it creates a huge slippery slope to give a for-profit business an exemption to taxes where no one else gets it. Other for-profit businesses in different industries could come forward and say, hey, you give it to these guys. We do important work. Why aren't we getting that exemption? So I think it's a problem, but I don't believe this is the way to fix it. So I ask that you not pass this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick correction. these companies pay all sales and use tax. It's estimated they pay $1.2 million in sales and use tax every year. When they purchase goods for their clients, and that could be a caterer or that could be a good, you know, a swag bag or whatever it might be, all those taxes are paid. And what DOR is saying that they should be taxed when they bill their clients who they're performing the services for, That is just fundamentally different than the way we do things here in Colorado. They are not a nonprofit. They do not have a wholesale license. They pay the full retail amount. A local government, in this case Denver, did an audit of one of these companies to see what was going on and thinking that they should have their service fee be subject to sales and use tax. The effort was ultimately unsuccessful because they could not justify imposing a sales and use tax on a legitimate services DMCs provide.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, members, just the short of it is this. This bill is to clarify that these are service providers. You heard about the local government that already went through and did an audit to justify that they can't impose the sales tax. Our state law is already very clear. There's substantial statutory evidence that services are not subject to sales and use tax. This is not a hair salon. They don't go get a retail tax license to sell shampoo or sell anything. This is not a carve-out. They are not currently being charged sales tax because they are a service provider. This is not an exemption. They're not being exempted from paying sales tax. They don't pay sales tax now. We are just making sure that everybody understands they are a service provider, they're not a wholesaler, that they don't need to have sales tax. That's what this bill is about. It's just a clarification. Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee proceed out of order to take up Senate Senate bill 113.

Senate bill 113 by Senators Zimabal, A. Ball, and Representatives Carter and McCormick concerning requiring a recovery residence to obtain a license from the Behavioral Health Administration.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 113 the committee report and the Appropriations Committee report To the HHS report Senator Mabile In the Health and Human Services Committee we ran a few amendments at the request of stakeholders to clarify how these properties can be used and who can run them. In the Appropriations Committee, we...

Okay, sorry.

Aye. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Appropriations Committee, we ran an amendment to get the appropriations down to zero.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move Amendment L-007.

Mr. Schauffler, will you please read L-7? Amendment L-007, amend printed bill page 3.

I move Amendment L-007 to Senate Bill 113.

So this amendment just makes it clear what type of facility these are, and it also clarifies that people who come to this facility who are using MET treatment can continue to receive that treatment and can't be forced to not receive it or to have it taper down. Thank you. I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the bill is pretty simple. We have what we call recovery residences here in Colorado. We had a third party that was certifying these residences. We found that there were some bad actors in the space and that people who were going to these residences weren't necessarily getting the kind of treatment and care that they thought they were getting. And we had people in neighborhoods in various cities who were saying, hey, I don't think that this home is doing what they told us it was going to do. and so we're going to bring that licensing under the BHA and that will give us more flexibility in making sure that these recovery homes are doing what they say they're doing and we will have some oversight over them and some ability to shut them down if they're not doing the right thing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank my co-sponsor and encourage an aye vote. I think one thing this bill goes to show is we do need to be careful about what government functions we outsource. And I think what's happened with the recovery residences is proof of that. When you outsource things like compliance and inspections, it's really hard to hold accountable the people that those third parties are intended to inspect. So I think the hope with this bill is that by bringing that in house, we are able to ensure that recovery residences are held to a high standard. And in turn, that will help people get the help that they need.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the Senate proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 121.

Senate Bill 121 by Senators Rodriguez and Simpson and Representatives Martinez and Winter T. concerning the establishment of a threshold for when an agricultural employer is required to pay

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the committee, we amended the bill to extend the implementation date until 2027 and also put some of the rulemaking into statute so they would not I have to remove the fiscal note. Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to be bringing forward this policy conversation with the majority leader about agriculture and the industry and the workers and the community. I highlighted in committee this truly is not about competing interests of producers and a workforce. There's real value in necessity in recognizing that we need each other. We need workers who are valued, respected, along with a healthy, profitable ag economy to drive to better outcomes for this industry that's really struggling at this point in time. Many times, ag labor in particular, sometimes gets wrapped up as kind of like industrialized and in manufacturing centers. and you lose some of the reference producers that I know that pay well above minimum wage, that provide housing, that provide transportation, that provide bonuses, that provide cell phones way above and beyond just a simple hourly rate. So I think this proposal, this bill, really does get to a spot that creates really a system that both of us can, And I would like to say we thrive. At the very least, we kind of survive where we're at right now. Such a challenging industry and margins are so tight. And I don't know why I torture myself every day. I look at snow forecasts and what water supplies are going to look like. And I can tell you this morning in the southern half of the state, we're now below 30% of average for snowpack. And so I'm trying to figure out how is my farm going to survive this season with that kind of snowpack. So this again, this is just an effort again to help. And from my perspective, again, help the workforce and the producers be a viable machine in the state of Colorado and ask for your support on Senate Bill 121.

Mr. Schoffler, will you please read all six to 121? Amendment L6, amend the business labor.

not make any substantial changes to the policy. Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of L6 to 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. L-6 is adopted. Mr. Schaffler, there's another amendment at the desk.

Senator Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-024. To the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment reduces the threshold from 60 hours to 56 hours, which is the cap under the current rulemaking law. So we lowered it from 60 to 56. It also amends the title to insert the 56 hours, the work week.

Senator Wallace.

Mr. Schaffler, will you please read L7? Amendment L7.

To the amendment.

Further discussion on L7? Senator Simpson.

Senator Rodriguez.

Senator Liston.

Further discussion on L-7? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of L-7 to 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The no's have it, and L7 is lost to the bill. Senator Cutter. So, actually, before I recognize you, I love, one of my favorite things about the upper chamber, as opposed to over there, whatever that is, the dark place, is that we actually debate here. and so as I welcome folks debating I just want folks if you make eye contact with me if you want to get into queue a welcome folks being in the well I appreciate that as opposed to trying to raise your hands from your seats So with that thank you And Senator Cutter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

There is an amendment at the desk.

I'm in the Business, Labor, and Technology Committee report, dated March 19, 20, 26, page 1, strike lines 1 through 12.

I move Amendment L13.

So this amendment adds a legislative declaration that mirrors the Ledge Deck language in Senate Bill 81, which was the bill that my good colleague from Lakewood ran to give ag workers overtime pay after 40 hours of work. So the Ledge Deck calls out the discriminatory origins of the exclusion of ag workers from basic overtime protections. This exclusion dates back to Congress' decision to exclude ag and domestic workers from the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Southern Democrats required this exemption in order to gain their support for the legislation because they did not want to provide protections for black and brown workers who overwhelmingly made up those workforces. See, we can all evolve. The ledge deck also calls out the importance of extending equitable overtime pay to ag employees to signify the value of their labor, and I would urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I ask for a no vote on this amendment. While I appreciate this, this was all the discussion that we had in the committee. While I don't disagree that the bill we ran in 2021 that did address a lot of these, a lot of these protections are in it. Prior to this, we didn't have any thresholds for overtime, and we have compromised to go to the 56 hours. We ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say that while we appreciate that you have moved the sponsors have moved from 60 hours to 56 That is still 16 hours more than every other worker qualifying for overtime

Yes, it's a lot more. It's a threshold that even we don't have

Mr. Schaffler, will you please read L9. Amendment L9.

To the amendment.

Further discussion on L-9. Senator Simpson.

Thank you Madam Chairman. Well I rise in opposition to L9 you know one of the themes

I would urge a no vote on Amendment L-9. Thank you. Further discussion? Senator Marshman.

Further discussion? Senator Catlin.

Is there further discussion on L-9? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of L-9 to 121. And all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. No's have it. L9 is lost. To the bill, Senator Wallace.

Amendment L12.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Further discussion, Senator Rodriguez.

Wallace. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just say I agree that this is work that goes around the

Senator Catlin.

Love me a bilingual dog. Further discussion? Seeing none the motion before the body is the adoption of L to 121 All those in favor say aye Aye Opposed no No The no's have it, L-12 is lost. Senator Marchman.

Mr. Schauffler, will you please read L10 to 121? Amendment L10. Senator Marchman.

To the amendment. Great.

Further discussion on L-10, Senator Simpson.

Further discussion, Senator Liston.

Senator Wallace.

Senator Simpson.

Okay, Senator Peltonar.

Is there further discussion? Senator Catlin.

Is there further discussion? Senator Wallace.

Is there further discussion? Seeing no further discussion on L-10, the motion before the body is the adoption of L-10 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The no's have it. L-10 is lost. Now, prior to us proceeding forward, I just want to acknowledge, and so with respect, the last amendment that we brought forward, L12, Senator Wallace spoke to the amendment, but did not actually move the amendment. And so I'm going to, just for proper procedure, I'm going to invite Senator Wallace back up to move L-12, and we will reconsider set a motion. Thank you, Senator Wallace.

The amendment's so nice, we had to address it twice.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing that forward for our consideration. There are no settled questions in the Senate. Here we are. So with that, that L-12 has been moved. Is there further discussion on L-12? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of L-12. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The no's have it. L-12 is lost. Okay, to the bill, Senator Marchman.

There's an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-11. It's been properly moved to the amendment. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Amendment 11 does what 12 would have done, but that one was lost. And this focuses on the decision makers. And I just want to be really clear about what this is. There's an exemption from overtime for decision-making managers. And it really does provide a significant loophole that essentially renders the provision of overtime to farm workers meaningless. By applying generic, often misleading managerial titles to salaried positions, employers are able to essentially deny overtime to employees who spend the majority of their time performing non-managerial tasks. Wage theft studies have found that misclassification of workers by falsely classifying them as managers is a prevalent tactic used to avoid paying overtime to employees who perform standard hourly duties. The misclassification in particular of dairy workers as decision-making managers has been discovered at Colorado Dairies in recent years as attempts to avoid paying overtime. This would protect so many of our dairy workers. I urge an aye vote on L011.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I rise in opposition to L011 and the concept of we've created some loophole for industry to avoid paying overtime. That just doesn't play out in the real world with cases of theft, wage theft in the ag industry. It's a loophole that doesn't really exist. I don't think we need this amendment, so I'm encouraging a no vote on L011.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I sure appreciate the Chamber's willingness to engage in this conversation today. We're going to keep trying to narrow this just a little bit because I think we truly are on to something.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L14. Proper motion to the amendment. So Amendment 14 would narrow the exclusion of those decision-making managers from overtime exemption to supervisors at livestock employers. So currently under our Colorado wage laws executives or supervisors paid a salary and who supervise at least two full employees and have the authority to hire and fire are exempt from overtime Similarly, there's the overtime exemption for decision-making managers of livestock employers who are paid a salary. This amendment makes these overtime standards more in line with other Colorado laws that govern overtime in other industries as applied to supervisors. The common practice of misclassifying workers as managers to avoid paying overtime is common, unlawful. So an amendment that provides guardrails to ensure that those who are excluded from overtime are in fact supervisors who have the power to fire and hire is necessary. the misclassification of dairy workers as decision-making managers has been discovered at Colorado Dairies and although paid a salary they are generally tasked with the ability to make nothing more than small insignificant decisions with no real authority and that's not really consistent with the meaning of the exemption so I would ask for an aye vote on L14.

L14. You know this is so similar to some of these other amendments that have that have failed. We're just, instead of calling it potato, we're calling it potato. There may be one or two operators out there that are skirting around and doing this, but the agriculture community is a very trustworthy community. They give you a title, a job, they mean it, and those people take that seriously. So I rise in opposition to L-14.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Well, members, let me just kind of read you for the millions of people who are watching as well as some of the people in our audience. What the definition is of livestock employer means an agriculture employer that is engaged in the raising, feeding, and caring of livestock animals such as cattle, sheep, swine, horses, bison, poultry, and similar animals for commercial purposes. Well, members, you know, I will confess to you, I'm a city guy, and I was not raised on a farm, but I highly respect and appreciate the hard work that the people who run farms and ranches, Far be it from me, somebody from the city, telling a farmer or rancher how to run their business. When they've done it successfully for years and generations, I don't think that we should be telling the good people in rural Colorado, be it on the eastern plains or the western slope, and the ranchers and farmers that live, eat, and sleep, and die agricultural work, I don't think it's our job to be telling them how to run their business. I would urge A no vote on amendment L014.

Mr. Schauffler, will you please read L18 to Senate Bill 121. Amendment L18. Senator Cutter.

Senator Rodriguez.

Further discussion, Senator Kirkmeyer.

Further discussion on L18? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of L18 to 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The no's have it. L18 is lost. To the bill. Senator Wallace.

You have to get the amendment. Oh, cool, cool, cool.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just getting a lesson from the majority and minority leader about what to do next. I would like to move Amendment L019 to this bill. That was, to be clear, y'all, that was my error, not yours. So direct all here.

Thank you Madam Chair This amendment requires the Agricultural Workers Advisory Committee to review and issue an advisory opinion on potential impact of this legislation onto ag workers employers and the agricultural industry as a whole before it can be implemented The Agricultural Workers Rights Act created the Agricultural Work Advisory Committee to gather and analyze information regarding the wages and working conditions of our agricultural workers. This committee is composed of workers themselves, advocates, and representatives of the agricultural employers. These experts should be consulted on legislation like this that specifically impacts agricultural workers and their wages. And a thorough review and advisory opinion can help guide the actions of our Agricultural Workers Service Program to ensure that our workers and employers are notified of changes and that the legislation is being implemented as needed. So I ask for an aye vote.

No, I move it. I move amendment L19, ma'am.

Ask for no vote.

Amendment L-8. Amend the Business Labor Technology Committee report. Senator Petter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment L-008. To the amendment. So this reinstates CDLE rulemaking from the introduced version of the bill because we believe CDLE needs the authority to be able to promulgate rules when a labor standard is changed. The language in the bill is currently too vague around what types of family members, of farm employees are exempted from overtime. It's also too vague around what it means to be a decision-making livestock manager, and CDLE really needs to be able to define these folks, so we would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, trying to generate another fiscal note, ask for a no vote.

Amendment L15. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment L15 to the amendment. So CDLE must provide written notice to ag employees on the new overtime standard. Workers deserve to know about labor standards that impact them, especially if they're being rolled back. Workers also need to know how to file labor violations. Information around that must be included in this notice. These are workers that are sometimes not English speakers, and so to the degree that we need to help them understand and be able to file these labor violations, and it needs to be available in English and in Spanish. The notice also must be posted on CDLE website, and this amendment is just about informing workers of their rights, not of the change, but of their rights. And we would ask for an aye vote.

Senator Simpson Thank you Madam Chair Again I rise in opposition to L Largely the demands in this amendment are already covered either annually through labor employment laws posters and or education outreach from the Department of Education I'm sorry, the Department of Agriculture, Farm Bureau, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. They're all active in this space in making sure employees are well informed. Ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I appreciate this conversation. I appreciate the, I've learned a lot today. But I would say that I still have some questions about ag overtime pay. So with that, I'm going to move the final amendment.

Amendment L-16. Senator Marchman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-16. To the amendment. Okay, so appreciate this. What this would do is it would require CDLE to conduct a study of ag worker overtime pay before the bill can be implemented. The study would include the number of workers who received overtime since it was instituted, how many of those who received overtime worked for seasonal employers, the number of seasonal employers versus year-round ag employers. So no significant data really exists that shows the impact of the overtime payrolls that reached the end of a three-year phase in period 2025. Changes to wage laws should be based on economic data, not anecdotal evidence from employers. Rolling back ag workers overtime without a study undermines the thorough rulemaking process completed by CDLE in 2022. The USDA is no longer producing the Farm Labor Survey, which also creates a gap in data about farmworker wages. I tell you guys all the time data is my love language. So here's a way we could go get some data before we implement this spell. I ask for an aye vote on L-16. Language access in multiple levels. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that last week we had forecasts. We're anywhere from a billion to 1.47 billion short. Requiring a contract between the Department of Labor and Employment with the institution of higher education to do a comprehensive statewide study would be a fiscal no. I would ask for a no vote on this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the hearing, we had shared data from Berkeley, and we had testimony from somebody at the CSU Ag Department that didn't come out in position of the bill or not, just reflected how that survey and the data from California could apply to us as well, that this actually does reduce wages for workers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm here today to talk about something that we haven't talked about yet. we've talked labor we've talked management we've talked as though there are silos between the management the owners and the labor nothing could be further from the truth the farms and ranches that are represented here today and that are represented by those of us down in the well are places that people live and work for decades. I'm sure that if you asked any one of these owner-operators, you would find that there are examples of people that have worked for them for 20 years and longer. So I wanted to share something with you that I haven't really talked about in regards to the way things work on farms, particularly, because I'm from a farm. When we started talking about the Ag Labor Bill and all, I made mention that we had men on that farm that had been with me for 28 years, and 17 and 18 years, that the children have been born on that farm, that they've been raised on that farm. but I don't think I've ever talked to you about the feeling that goes between those of us who are owners, operators, of these outfits. We had a man named Felix that had been with us for 28 years. I mentioned that earlier. My mother passed away. And my dad asked him if he would be a pallbearer for my mom. And he said yes. Three or four years later, my dad passed away. And I went out to the shop and asked Felix if he would be a pallbearer for my dad. and the man broke down in tears and I kind of had to hold on to him because he knew that his family had passed and he knew that the only last job he could do for my dad was to be one of his pallbearers. You know, I think sometimes folks don't get an opportunity to feel how deep those feelings are between people that you have known and loved for years and years until you see the look in their eye when you ask them if they would be a pallbearer for your dad. And those men stood there at that grave and they cried like I've never seen men cry. And it wasn't Because the guy had been abusive or that he had taken advantage. The man had taken care of them and they've taken care of him. You know, we've on that farm have had 10 or 12 families that have become citizens of the United States because they work for this outfit. And it would have been easy to not do that because it's expensive and it's time-consuming. But these people had been so much part of that family that they needed to be citizens of this country. And the only person that could do that was my dad and my mom. And they did. the man that I'm talking about, Felix, is today a citizen of this country. And he is very proud of that. He's very proud of the fact that my dad loved him enough to do that. To this day, he's still attached to that farm in one way or another. So when we get into these arguments and these debates and these kind of things, I think we need to think about the human aspect between us and the people that we associate with day in, day out for dozens of years, for decades, for multiple decades. What is that feeling? It's not one that you would ever take advantage of someone. It's not one that they would ever take advantage of you. there's a there's a sense of loyalty and a sense of family that if you've never experienced it is something that you would probably very proud to have that feeling about people that may be from a completely different culture that bring homemade food to your house because they want you to have some they want to celebrate Christmas with you in a way that only they can do You cannot pay for that. No matter what we say and do here in this building, you cannot pay for those feelings. Those feelings grow because of the way we treat one another. And I think one of the things that the state of Colorado should be a lot more aware of is the feeling that agriculture has for the people that help them on those farms and ranches. The feeling of family. the feeling of needing each other and depending on one another and celebrating the good harvests and work hard on the times like we're heading into now that are going to be very very tough that's not just on the employer or the owner it's on the people that live on those farms and that help with those farms that grow those crops and grow those animals so i'd ask you all to just simply keep in mind. We're talking about people. We're talking about people that employ people, but we are not here to take advantage of them because we need them badly every day. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. and it's been an interesting discussion. I don't know, with all of the talk and stuff, you may have missed some of the things that were said I kind of pride myself that it paying attention And what you heard was from one of the they said that Senate Bill the bill in 2021 probably never should have been passed. It was one of the statements that was made. And that's really what the crux of this all is. The bill in 21 was passed. The people in this chamber and the other and the governor signed into law Senate Bill 21087 that gave these workers finally their opportunity to be a part of the work process with everybody else. And they wanted to talk about how it's a 24-7 and no one else understands that. I worked at the United States Postal Service for 27 years. The mail never stops. Our people are there every single moment that a light is on in that building. I'm not going to compare it to sheep herders, but you can imagine supervisors are corralling the workers from the smoke break areas and from the coffee machines back to their machines so that they process the mail. And it continues to come. So I know what it's like. My co-workers know what it's like to work in a facility, in a place that's 24-7. And we were pleased to be a part of the bill in 21 that allowed the people who were out on the plains, on the frontiers doing work the same but in a different way that we were doing it and we were incredibly supportive and we continue to be supportive of them today i mean that's why um we we had a counter bill that disappointingly um failed in in that committee and this is the the one that they came forward with and it just moves it back to 56 hours um i mean i can tell you about you know at the post office you know getting paid double time i can get tell you about getting night differential um getting holiday pay um that was all all things um and they're still and that's an industry quite frankly that's losing billions of dollars a year but it is a service that is needed and we as a community we as a country i mean again it's written into our constitution that we have the mail service um this is something that we need to work out people need to be paid people need to be cared for and i thought what we had done in in 21 was a way forward with that. I'm disappointed that we are trying to claw back from that with, you know, once again, the tactics where everybody's going to leave the state if something like this were to happen. Things are changing. This needs to change as well. I'm sorry, but I cannot be supportive of this, But I will forever be supportive of all of the workers here within our state, whether they work in the urban setting in warehouses like I did or they work out on the plains or up at 10,000 feet herding sheep. I support all of them Thank you Further discussion from Senator Kipp Oh sorry Senator Rodriguez I have a cue

I'd like to thank my colleague, the good Senator from Sentinel. I don't disagree with the things he said. I don't. I don't look at this bill as I'm trying to hurt workers. I'm trying to balance an industry that's under different conversations. I have family who worked at the bulk center. I've had this conversation with the good senator. I get that. The work never ends. And I've always been trying to be a balanced approach. I supported the bill. I came to this well and fought for it. I came to do it. We as legislators run bills all the time that we have to come back and make tweaks or adjustments on. We have a bill that we, I think it was Senate Bill 4, that we did an adjustment on from the previous bill that we amend and change and tweak or expand. This bill did have rulemaking. I supported that bill. Data is showing that it's not helping. The post office absolutely has problems, and I do get that. I also see that they have the ability to raise, they're looking to raise their prices to keep working. This is an industry that doesn't have that tool. This is a structural problem. I get it. we could let them raise prices here in Colorado. Do you think anybody would buy their product and it would generate work? If you don't have business to have workers, you don't have workers. If you don't have businesses that we always sit up here and blow up, yes, I do get there are people that abuse the system. I am a small family business owner. I have 40 employees. I know their names and I care about them. They are not a massive corporation that are numbers on a spreadsheet that I can cut easily. I know who they are. We do work. We give them health care. We pay their health care. We give them bonuses, holidays. We try to do everything. If you want to see the decimation of an industry saying they're going to leave, the small family farm, which is 80% of our industry, is a thing that we should be proud of. If you want to see us turn to California, where it's all corporate farms and big money, and then also the discussions we're having of automation, that's how it works. Even in Colorado, go to a store, go to a bank. those systems are being automated because of the cost of labor. I don't know if this bill will be the single issue that will fix it. We have water issues. We have climate issues. We have many issues we have to deal with. This bill is not going to solve those problems. It's just a discussion we're trying to have where you have data. We had workers come and testify that they did calculated their hours even when they and they make their money in the bulk season. The growth season is why they come here to work. They calculated their hours for the year. They did 2,000 hours. They didn't even do the 2080 required. That is the industry we're dealing with and trying to address those needs and how that works to sit here and pose our urban values on an industry we don't know. I went out and talked to the farmers. I went out to the communities. I went to an onion plant. We should not impose what we think is right. They're asking for it. Workers did testify in support of this building committee. I just want to recognize that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I really appreciate everybody's thoughtful discussion on this topic today. It's a really hard one. I voted for the act back in 2021 and I know there were people who felt like the overtime threshold was too high and others who felt like it was too low And you know I not in your shoes I don work a farm But I do understand that you are facing pressures. But I also understand the pressures of the workers and the need to not be overworked. My understanding is also that there are workers who are on both sides of this, and that is what brings me to my answer. I know there are some workers who would say, yes, give me more hours, and I'll work at the same rate because you can't pay me, but there's also workers who are saying, you need to allow us to get overtime because we are working. It is hard, tiring work, and that is what brings me to my vote. respectfully of a no today on this bill. I think that people should deserve to be paid good wages for their work and over time when they are exceed a certain threshold and my belief is just that this threshold is too high. So thank you for allowing me to weigh in on this debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of Senate Bill 121. I currently live on a farm. My first job when I was a teenager was working on a farm. It's probably my second favorite job right next to this one. Yeah, you have to say that. I also learned a lot on that first job. I was tasked with, as a teenager, milking 120 cows a day, twice a day. My first job, again, I was a teenager, and my shift was 2 a.m., milk 120 cows, finish at 9 a.m., go get something to eat, take a nap, come back at 2 p.m., and again milk the same 120 cows until 9 p.m. Go home, grab some sleep, go to school the next day, have a day off, and then come back the following day and do it all over again. So one day at work, one day at school. That was what I did. Bought my first car as a teenager. And I loved the freedom and the work and the responsibility that was given to me. And I learned so much from that experience. and I'm thankful for the family farm folks just three miles away that allowed me to have that job and work those hours and do that. I got paid $25 to do the morning shift and I got paid $20 to do the afternoon shift because there was some feeding and scraping of corrals in there every day and one of the shifts rather than the other. and I never questioned it I never asked why I never said I'm being treated unfairly I was a teenager I didn't know I was just thankful for the work and thankful for the independence and so as we're looking at this bill as we're looking at an exemption for the agriculture industry I just wanted to know why is it that the ag industry is exempted from overtime and potentially from minimum wage and the answer is pretty simple. Agriculture workers are exempt from federal overtime pay based on the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. That's nearly a hundred years ago this thing was passed. And why? It was due to the historically seasonal, unpredictable, and weather-dependent nature of farming. You put sheep, you put cows out on the pasture in the summer. You don't do that in the winter. You milk cows at 2 a.m., not just whenever you feel like it, or whenever you're not going to get paid overtime for it. It has to be done. It's seasonal. Seasonal daily, seasonal yearly, monthly, seasonal all the time. And if farmers have to dance around this, it makes it overly difficult for them to get through their planning process. Our perishable crops, things need to be done to protect our crops from perishing. We need to get that work done quickly. Historical precedent. This law has been in place since 1938. Yes, it's had some adjustments here and there, but sheep didn't change, cows didn't change, they still have to be milked two or three times a day. That hasn't changed. It's funny how nature doesn't change in that way. And so I also looked at... a fact sheet that was put out by the wage and hour division of the U.S. Department of Labor talking about FLSA. Virtually all employees engaged in agriculture as it's defined under the FLSA are covered by the act in that they produce goods for interstate commerce. You have primary agriculture, you have secondary agriculture, they have different rules, all based on the seasonality of the agriculture industry. There are certain exemptions under FLSA that do not require specific employees engaged in agriculture to be paid, overtime pay, or a certain wage. the employee's exempt status is contingent upon the duties that the employee performs each work week thus whether an employee is exempt from the the the flsa or not is assessed on a workweek basis and each workweek is assessed independently of other work weeks this is a 50 state nationwide labor law. If we start changing that in the state of Colorado, and I've heard the arguments for and the arguments against, we have sheep and cows grazing in Wyoming, in New Mexico, in Utah, Nebraska, not far from here. And if we make it overly difficult for our ag producers, our job creators to create jobs in the state of Colorado, they don't have a choice, but to just move their operation across the state line I don wanna see that happen because I love seeing agriculture in our state I not saying it will happen I not saying it won but the more we stack cards against our job creators, the more they want to move out of this state. Look no further than Palantir. Just took a huge operation out of Colorado. And why do they do that? They They do it because of the onerous regulations that continue to come from our legislature to drive them out. And I know we're working in the best interest of components and things in the operations of those businesses, but we need to take a look at the overall impact of what we're doing, what we're producing out of here, and we need to make sure that we're competitive as a state with our neighboring states so that we don't continue to lose more job creators and more of our workforce to other states. With that, again, I would encourage an aye vote on Senate Bill 121.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I was here in 21 when we debated. In the House, we were here until the early hours of the morning debating this bill. There was lots of amendments to get to the compromises that we got that we have been under for five years, even all of our agricultural businesses. So we've worked through this. I'm not supportive of this bill. I also wasn't supportive of the bill to make it 40 hours, because right now and since 21, agricultural workers have been eligible for overtime if they work 48 hours. and for seasonal workers, seasonal agricultural businesses, at the height of that, if they double their workforce, if they do it for more than, I think it's 22 weeks, they would be eligible to only pay overtime at 56 hours. And I think the bill that the sponsors have brought would make it 56 hours across the board. And that sounds great, and they don't have to do all the record keeping, except for those other agricultural workers who don't do seasonal work, that go in every day and do their job. Right now, they're eligible for overtime after 48 hours. That will be raised to 56 hours. So that can hurt them, and I don't think we should hurt somebody in that place if we're trying to make businesses better. Why should we hurt those workers? And that's primarily why I'm on a no on this bill. I would rather allow the status quo of 48 hours until there's a seasonal need that it goes up to 56 hours. That's what we have right now. And I think it has been working. Yes, there's compliance because right now, not only us here in the urban areas, but in the agricultural areas, the issues with buying groceries, feed, fertilizer, everything is going up. And it's hard to make a living in this business. And I think we recognize that. I think that every worker has dignity in the work they do and should be respected But if we pass the bill as it been amended there is a group that going to be hurt That the group that works regular job not seasonal and they're entitled to overtime at 48 hours. They're the ones going to be hurt because now they're not entitled to overtime until they work 56 hours. So I would rather keep the status quo. That said, I'm going to be a no vote on the bill, but I do want to say something about this process. You know, sitting at my desk and watching what was happening, since I've been here, this is the first bill that has gotten the debate that it deserves from both sides of the aisle. I think both sponsors and both sides of the aisle should be proud of the work they've done on this bill, because I think this is how we should be doing things. It's about the policy. It's about the people impacted. So even though I'm not where the sponsors want, I think the work that's been done by everybody here has been really good. So that said, I encourage you no vote. There's a reason we're called the upper chamber.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, since it's been put into issue on the subject of how laws intersect with employment decisions, in 2025, Florida passed a law that was shorthanded to the Choice Act. I believe it was Senate Bill 922. It was some very employer-friendly ability to enforce non-compete provisions against skilled, highly compensated employees. That's why Palantir left to take advantage of those laws. We've got, I think, a lot more pro-employee provisions in Colorado. That's happened since I've been here, and credit to those who did that work. some of the states with the best non-compete laws are all over the map. They're California and North Dakota, believe it or not. So just to clear up the record on that, I think like the volunteer of Tolkien lore, you need to be careful gazing too deeply into that because the stone can be bewitched and it will show you what it wants you to see and not what is the truth. But like some other senators have mentioned, I was here too for SB 87. I remember that debate. It was hot. It went on for hours. And just so everyone's clear, you know, we're not starting from a starting point of 40 hours like most other hourly workers. We have this bifurcated structure pursuant to that exhaustive rulemaking. Some agricultural workers get overtime after 48, some at 56. Already workers in this sector are not treated the same. I do believe that the sponsors earnestly care about agricultural workers, and I believe that others have spoken do. I've looked at some of the papers that were handed out by proponents of this legislation, opponents of the other one. Short takes by economists looking at incentives created in the law, incentives for employers to behave a certain way at a certain number of overtime hours. I think where I come down, though, is I just think a little bit more about the individual worker as opposed to the collective. I think the collective view is that well you know if we don have a higher than 40 cut point demand for labor will shift Some folks may be less well off They may want to work more and so on Where I start from and where I think I end on this policy is simply the idea that the worker should be viewed as an individual and that we should try to keep closing up or at least not widen this difference that we've opened up in the law. Again, the non-passage of this bill doesn't mean 40, it means 48 or 56. And to some of the comments that have been made, I believe that a number of agricultural workers would rather work 56 or 60, maybe more, hours before overtime triggers on, frankly, given the plight of some of the nations that they have fled from and sought, for example, an H-2A visa to come here. I've traveled to Peru. I've traveled to other Latin American countries. Those folks haven't been as fortunate in their history as we have been. So they come here, and sure, maybe they'll work 60 hours if that's what's on offer, because they just want to grab a little sliver of this vanishing thing that we call the American dream through hard work. I think, though, where I'm hung up is, does that have to be the question? 60 hours or nothing, 56 or nothing? Is that the limit of what we can imagine, what we can construct by way of economy and society? Not anywhere, but in this privileged country, this economic superpower. I was just checking the Forbes list. Nine of the ten richest people on the Forbes list globally are in this country with a wealth estimated at $2.3 trillion. And then as to the folks who have done this work that we talked about all morning, the brutal work of harvesting crops, of tending animals, they just passed it, but they were on it for a long time. There is a resolution in the House to change the name of Cesar Chavez Day to Farm Workers Day. I think we all know why. Farm Workers Day, because that's really the point. It was never about the person now revealed to be quite flawed who led that effort. It was about the people doing the work who deserved the dignity that they weren't getting. So even as we rightly rename that holiday in honor of those who do the work, we're sort of grappling with a fight for crumbs over here. I've been thinking this morning about that famous William Jennings Bryan speech from 1896. You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. Now he was talking about the gold standard and whether money would be tight money pegged to gold or looser money pegged to silver and whether creditors or debtors benefit from that. We're not talking about that now. All right, we've been off the gold standard since 1973, but I can't help but think lately, whoever else might be getting the rose that too often working people are stuck with the thorns. So at the end of the day, I think I'm just sad. I'm sad that we're here, that I know why the bill is coming. I've read some of the supportive materials. But I'm sad that in this land of richness and power, we are nonetheless coming from an economic Senate policy of scarcity. So I have to be a no. Senator Pelton R. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of Senate Bill 121. Is it the bill I want? No. a good senator from Aurora just talked about this land of of economic prosperity in this country. The grain farmers in America the last two years are operating in the red. They are taking some of their reserves, some of their equity out of their land, out of their equipment, just to survive. I guarantee you any ag laborer on that place is making more money than the people that own that place. The good senator from Montrose talked about the human factor. I have businesses that live in this space. Those are people that work with us. But for them to have a job, we need to be profitable also without burning up all the equity out of our land where we cannot pass it down to the next generation. Agriculture is special. It's different for a reason. I thank the sponsors for working on this bill to try to correct some of that injustice that was done in 21. Do I think it's there? No. But it's a step forward. There's a lot of party line policy comes out of this building and it's bad policy. This is helping to correct at least a portion of some of that kind of policy. So with that, I rise in support of 121. Senator Cutter. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you all for listening to the debate today and for all the work everyone has done. I just can't help but reflect on the good Senator from Aurora's words about being a prosperous nation. And here we're talking. I know and acknowledge that many of you have a hard time. I don't think farming is an easy life by any means. And I hope you know and understand that. But we can't put things on the backs of workers. and I feel that we live in this nation that is the wealthiest nation in the world, and we're talking about middle-class farmers and workers. The wealth is concentrated so far at the top that we're not even, and we're arguing about things that people's daily lives and getting by and feeding their families. And I wish we would all be able to take a step back, and not that we could do anything about it, But, you know, look at where the wealth is really concentrated and what we're all facing as citizens in this country right now. And, yeah, thank you for all the work you've done on this, and that's all.

Senator Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of thoughts. come to mind. One, it's National Ag Day. What a great opportunity. There might actually be people in the building maybe from the Colorado Seed Potato Committee and or Colorado Farm Bureau or Rocky Mountain Farmers Union that are going to feed us today at lunch. What an appropriate time and opportunity. A couple other thoughts. The good senator from Aurora talked about the sadness of today I actually quite the opposite to be very much optimistic that maybe this is an opportunity to create again it cliche but a true win situation where under the path we were headed down and truly if we went to 40 hours you were going to see a decline in the number of ag workers in the state of Colorado I think where we've landed is a good balance that, again, does create having a valued, respected workforce and certainly incrementally a little more healthier, profitable set of producers, which is key to our success in this space. In Colorado, there are about, based on the last census of agriculture, there are 36,000 farms in Colorado. less than 5% of those, about 1,800, have revenue of over 500,000. So the dominant conversation in this state about agriculture are small family farms and operations. I think about historically, I'm the fourth generation of my family to farm and ranch in the San Luis Valley. My grandfather raised his family on 160 acres. My dad raised our family on like 500 acres. I'm telling you today, I have an 800 acre irrigated farm that if I didn't have this job and manager of the real groundwater conservation district, I couldn't raise my family on 800 acres. And a lot of that goes into that about how much debt you carry and equipment and input costs. costs, but this policy, this bill is really targeted and helpful in that space of how do you get, you know, how do you get these small farms to just really, I characterize it as just hanging on and being part of the ag industry. Somebody had referenced, the majority of you had referenced, I don't want to see a shift to large corporate mega farms across the state of Colorado. There's such value and such caring. The good senator from Montrose was really deep into that conversation about the connectivity across all of these small farms between the operator, the owner, and the workforce. That's not the exception. That's generally the rule. Without a doubt, there are bad actors, but I know so many producers that go above and beyond. They pay much more than minimum wage. They provide housing. They provide transportation, not just while they're on work on the farm, but they get to use for their personal use as well. Cell phones, bonuses, Christmas gifts, the list just goes on and on. From what I see, that really represents what the standard is for, particularly in the small farm ag space. So it's been a great conversation. I was going to recognize the comments of the good senator from Adams County, I think. she's not on the list yet so I'm going to say Adams County and how this debate and how this chamber function today very proud to be part of this conversation and for for me what is such an important policy consideration and encourage you all to support Senate Bill 121 thank you madam

Aye.

No.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the Senate proceed out of order to take up House Bill 1099.

Senate to House Bill 1099. House Bill 1099 by Representatives Titone and Wynn and Senators Colker and Marshman concerning protecting the financial condition of common interest communities. I'll move it.

To the bill. To the bill.

Senator Marchman. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, yeah, so when a family buys a home in a condo or a planned community, they make one of the largest financial decisions of their lives. And in Colorado today, they can do that without knowing what costs are going to come later to maintain the building that they just bought into. So roof replacements, parking structures, there's no 30-year picture of what the association they're joining is financially prepared or unprepared to handle. This bill changes that. It requires developers to commission an independent 30-year reserve study before the first unit ever sells, and then it puts the study in the hands of every buyer 24 hours before they close. It requires the developer to transfer that study to the homeowners association at the point of handover. And it closes a real documented gap in how management companies handle association records when a community changes hands. This is an affordability bill as much as it is a consumer protection bill. The single most predictable cause of a surprise assessment, a $10,000 or $15,000 bill that lands in a condo owner's mailbox with 90 days to pay, is an association that never funded its reserves. Those assessments price people out, they foreclose, they destroy the financial stability of communities that were never told what they were getting into. I ask for an aye vote on House Bill 1099.

Aye.

No.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Wednesday, March 25th.

Aye.

Guys have it, and we will lay over the balance of the calendar.

The motion is to rise and report. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it and we will rise and report . . Senate will come to order. Senadora.

March 24, 2026. Mr. President, in committee of the Holbeck's leave to report it is handed into consideration the following attached bills, being second reading thereof. It makes following recommendations thereon. Senate Bill 128, as amended. Senate Bill 113, as amended. Senate Bill 121, as amended. passed on second reading in order to engross the place in the calendar for third reading and final passage. House Bill 1099 passed on second reading in order to revise the place in the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senate Bill 40, Senate Bill 134, House Bill 1144, House Bill 1071, Senate Bill 48, laid over until March 25th, 2026, retaining its place in the calendar. Senator Gonzales.

I move the report. there is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schaffler, please read S-001 to Senate Bill 121. Amendment S-001. Senator Wallace moved to amend the report of the committee. Senator Cutter. I'd like to move amendment S-001 to the committee of the whole.

So a 56-hour threshold sends a message that farm workers can be worked longer and harder than anyone else before the law steps in. That's unequal treatment, plain and simple. It would deny farm workers meaningful overtime protections and preserve an unfair second-class standard. When people have more time free from work, they can spend time with families and out in their community. Overtime protections help reduce income inequality and give workers more spending power to contribute to the economy. We We all know that agriculture work is grueling, laborious, and often dangerous. All the more reason these workers should no longer be excluded from basic labor protections such as overtime pay for 40 hours. Overtime laws exist for two things, to compensate workers fairly for long hours and to discourage overwork. This 56 hour threshold continues to undermine both of these goals. Latinos disproportionately represent a majority of ag workers and are therefore disproportionately impacted by the current inequitable overtime threshold. Latino communities are being hit hard by the current federal administration and its immigration enforcement tactics. With Latinos representing a majority of agriculture workers, the industry is at high risk of adverse impacts due to these policy choices. These communities are living in fear due to the current administration, and rolling back overtime protections only puts more strain and uncertainty on these families. I ask for an aye vote on Amendment 001. A senatorial 5 has been requested and granted. Thank you. . Thank you.

Senators Frizzell, Samora Wilson, Kirkmeyer, Rich, Benavidez, Dougherty, Amabile, Henriksen, Mr. Majority Leader, Mr. Minority Leader, Roberts, Snyder, Baisley, Lindstedt, Liston, Pelton B, Pelton R, Exum, Catlin, Mullica, Bright, Carson. Please add the president.

There is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to S-003 to Senate Bill 121. Amendment S-003, Senator Wallace moves to the end. Senator Wallace. Oh, Senator Marchman.

I move S-003 to Senate Bill 121. To the amendment.

So as we discussed, this is the decision-making managers. It eliminates the exclusion of decision-making managers from overtime exemption. This is where we're seeing a misclassification of dairy workers as decision-making managers. and we'd like to rectify that problem. So I would ask for an aye vote on S-003. There's further discussion.

Thank you, Mr. President. We had good conversation about this in the committee of the whole meeting. I request a no vote on S-003.

Henrickson, Amabile, Pelton B, Roberts, Liston, Mullica, Baisley, Bright, Pelton R, Carson, Catlin. Please add the president. with a vote of 12 eyes, 22 no, 0 absent and 1 excused.

With a vote of 34 eyes, 0 no, 0 absent and 1 excused.

Senate Bill 128 is amended. Senate Bill 113 is amended. Senate Bill 121 is amended. Passed second meeting order. Grows place the count of third meeting and final passage. House Bill 1099 passed on second reading order revised, placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senate Bill 40, 134, House Bill 1144, 1071, and Senate Bill 48 laid over until 325-2026 and retaining their place on the calendar.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to Senate Bill 39. Senate Bill 39 by Senator Snyder and Pelton B. and Representatives Basenicker and Taggart concerning the administration by the Fire and Police Pension Association of Disability and Survivor Benefits. Senator Snyder. Thank you, Mr. President.

Okay, now this is a truly legitimate technical change. There were two places discovered as it went through the House where they used the word shall, and that had to be changed. So literally, it is just a change of two words in the entire bill.

With a vote of 34 I, 0, no, 0, absent, and 1, excuse, that motion is adopted.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the repassage of Senate Bill 39.

Are there any no votes?

Co-sponsors. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to Senate Bill 84. Senate Bill 84 by Senators Weissman and Frazell and Representative Wilford. Concerning the preservation of privileges for certain state entities in connection with information made available to the Office of the State Auditor and the performance of its statutorily prescribed duties related to the state's fraud hotline. Senator Weissman. Thank you, Mr. President. At the risk of getting fined I move the Senate to concur with House amendments to Senate Bill 84 Oh man Tell us why You know it a wild time when a bunch of lawyers get together and debate the finer points The House struck two words from two parts of the bill in the interest of clarity and I think we okay with it So we ask for a yes vote.

Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for repassage of Senate Bill 84.

What Senators Zamora Wilson, Baisley, with a vote of 32 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent, and 1 excuse, Senate Bill 84 is repass. Cosponsors. Message from the House. Help. Help us. The House is passed on third reading and returns here with Senate Bill 110. The House is passed on third reading and transmitted to the Revisor of Statutes, House Bill 1333. House is passed on third reading and transmitted to the Revisor of Statutes, House Bill 1331, House Bill 1332, House Bill 1183, House Bill 1109, House Bill 1308, and House Bill 1241, amended as printed in House General March 23, 2026. Message from the Revisor. We hear with transmit without comment House Bill 1333 without comment as amended House Bill 1109, 1183, 1241, 1308, 1331, 1332. Consideration of Governor's appointments.

Mr. Schauffler, please read the appointments listed on the consent calendar. Members of the Colorado Child Abuse Prevention Trust Fund for terms expiring November 7, 2028. Lindsay Spraker of Littleton, Colorado, to serve as a subject matter expert with knowledge of a child abuse prevention, reappointed. Antonio Chiesa of Denver, Colorado, to serve as a subject matter expert with knowledge of child abuse prevention, appointed. Member of the State Board of Land Commissioners, effective July 1, 2025, for term expiring June 30, 2029. Deborah Frobe of Denver, Colorado, to serve as a representative of Natural Resource Conservation as an unaffiliated, reappointed. Mr. Majority Leader.

Is there any discussion? Seeing in the motion is the confirmation of the appointments on the consent calendar. Are there any no votes?

those appointments are confirmed.

state. Thank you. Very good. Does anyone know if Senate BLT will be meeting today? I was wondering if anyone from Senate BLT knows whether or not Senate BLT is meeting today. As I look at the person who might be the vice chair of Senate BLT right here in the well talking, is Senate BLT He may be meeting today at 1.30, 2 o'clock.

Very good. To hear House Bill 1005. Mm, by memory. Very good. Seeing no further announcements, Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is that the Senate will adjourn CNA-DA. No? All right. You've heard the motion to adjourn at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, March 25. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. You guys have it. The Senate will adjourn until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, March 25, 2026. Good job, team. I figure after a long day. Thank you. Thank you.