May 7, 2026 · Finance · 21,536 words · 10 speakers · 280 segments
. Thank you. The committee will come to order. Ms. Colbert, please call the roll.
Representatives Brooks Present Camacho Garcia Gonzalez He should be online shortly for now, he's excused Hartsuk Marshall Soper Stewart Zocay Tatum Mr. Chair
Folks, thanks for sticking around We've got six bills First up is Senate Bill 117 Who's feeling lucky? Representative Sober.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just wanted to inform the committee that I'm subbing today for Representative Ken DeGraff. First of all, the odds of winning the lottery is less than three drops in 70 Olympic swimming pools. Which is exactly why you shouldn't be buying lotto tickets with credit cards. You should buy it with money you have, not borrowed money that you don't have.
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, members, until the Lottery Commission quietly changes rules, buying lottery tickets and scratch tickets on credit was prohibited in Colorado. This bill puts that prohibition back into statutes. cash check money order debit all those still works what this bill stops is people uh using credit cards and potentially money they don't do not have uh to purchase uh lottery tickets re-establishing the rule um as it was and we asked for a yes vote committee any questions
for the bill's sponsors. Seeing none, we'll go to the witness testimony phase. Did you have a question?
Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, false alarm.
We will call up our two witnesses, James Weary and Tom Sieber, who's here for questions only.
I am.
I am, and she is. So I'll see you tomorrow. Hello? I gotta do the aisle. Hello?
Yes, Mr. Weary. Hey thank you so much Floor yours for two minutes Okay excellent All right I ready to start The floor is yours sir
All right, so I'd like to start by saying my name is James Wary. I'm a student at CU Boulder. I represent myself, and I'd like to start by saying that according to the World Health Organization, gambling can lead to increased incidents of mental illness and suicide. Gambling can also lead to neglect of children, poverty, domestic abuse, and serious financial distress. The National Council on Problem Gambling estimates that the annual national social cost of gambling is approximately $14 billion in the United States. These social costs can include increased crime, individuals diagnosed with pathological gambling disorder, have an associated risk of engaging in theft, fraud, and forgery. However, less than 0.25% of the state revenue generated from gambling activities is allocated to gambling prevention and treatment services. The Colorado Lottery spent over $7.5 million on advertising last year. This means the state of Colorado allocates more funding to encouraging gambling than it does to address the problems associated with it. The bill reduces gambling accessibility by restricting non-cash purchases and banning online sales of lottery tickets. This may lower overall participation and associated social harms. However, it does not directly address gambling addiction or increase funding for its prevention and treatment. I must urge the committee to amend the bill to address the root causes of associated gambling harms instead of treating the symptoms. First, the bill should be amended to impose a cap on the amount of lottery or scratch tickets an individual can buy. This would help to limit the risk of gambling addiction while promoting responsible participation. Second, the bill should be amended to ensure that a greater amount of lottery revenue is allocated to problem gambling prevention and treatment rather than to lottery advertising. These amendments would ensure that the state prioritizes public health instead of exacerbating these gambling related harms. Thank you very much for your time. I yield.
Thank you. And we also have Tom Seaver remote, but he's for questions only. Give him a second to see if we can pull him up. we can. Committee, any questions for the witness?
Yes.
And Mr. Seaver is with Colorado Lottery, so now is the time. Okay, seeing no questions, thank you for your time this early evening. Last call for witnesses on Senate Bill 117. Seeing none, witness testimony phase is closed. Amendment phase, bill sponsors. Any amendments from the bill sponsors?
no amendments no amendments from the bill sponsors
committee any amendments
no amendments from committee
amendment phase is closed wrap up bill sponsors representative Mabry
thank you committee so definitely Rep Zocay is familiar with Mr. Beast I don't know about the rest of you but Mr. Beast is a Gen Z influencer who does these ridiculous videos that he spends millions of dollars on And one of his videos last year, he bought $750,000 in scratch tickets and then filmed scratching them all off to see if they could win their money back. They won $125,000. So maybe you shouldn't be doing this on credit. Vote yes on 117.
Okay, Representative Sober.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I didn't understand that either for the record. But what I will say is the reason why we want to limit it to not buying on credit Same reason why people get into trouble very quickly when they buying stocks on credit and all of a sudden the market drops, and they've lost that value. With lotto tickets, you may not even have a piece of paper to hold, because once the drawing is done and you've lost, now all of a sudden whatever you borrowed on credit, that's something you have to pay back. that individuals should be using real dollars. It could be tied to a debit card or a check, but not something that they're borrowing on the future because this is where people get into trouble, especially with the addiction side. I would ask for a yes vote.
Hey, committee, any closing comments? Seeing none, a proper motion routes, Senate Bill 117 to the Committee on Appropriations. Representative Soper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 117 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.
Second.
Second by Representative Hartsook. All right. Please poll the committee. Representatives Brooks.
No.
Camacho.
Yes.
Garcia.
Yes.
Gonzalez.
Real fast, I know who Mr. Beast is, and yes.
Hartsook. Marshall.
Yes.
Soper.
Yes.
Stuart.
Yes.
Zocay.
Yes.
Tatum.
Yes.
Mr. Chair.
Yes.
The pass is 9 to 2. Have fun and approves. Okay. Next up on our revamped order, we have Senate Bill 116. Representative Zocay.
Okay. 114. Oh, the bottom. Second to last. No, you're third.
Representative Zocay, tell us about 116.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. If you look at the original Senate Bill 116, you can see that much has changed, and this has been significantly pared down. The bill that's in front of us today is mostly technical cleanup of conforming some dates, And the substantive piece of this is capping the business personal property tax exemption at $58,000 rather than having it change with inflation. And hope I can get your yes vote today.
Any questions for the bill sponsor? Representative Sober.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Zocay. So would this mean that in some years it would be less than what's in the bill? If the bill doesn't pass, right now it fluctuates to where it might be more than what's in the bill and less than what's in the bill.
Representative Zocchi.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Soper. You are correct. The exemption threshold adjusts with inflation as well as deflation, so it can go up or down.
Representative Soper, and feel free to work in tax widgets of Colorado. Not judiciary, though.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, you know, I am subbing for Representative Graff, so obviously I have to look out for the tax widgets of Colorado. Thank you. With this, since typically we don't have deflation in Colorado, I mean, that's almost never been heard of because we're really strong typically in our economy, that would always mean that it's heading upwards. So this actually, in fact, would be a decrease, would it not?
Thank you Mr Chair and thank you Representative Actually I would not feel so confident to say that it would always increase and I think that our fiscal analysts actually struggled with that in looking at out years and whether it would be going down next year
so I will just throw that out there, but I will say it was something like $7,000, $7,700 in 2019-2020, we've really increased it sharply into the $50,000 range. It's currently at $56,000, or in 25-26 is $56,000. And so I think capping it at $58,000 is very reasonable.
Any other questions from the committee? Representative Marshall.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you just mentioned the personal property tax, But we also have, it looks like, adjustments to the senior property tax exemption, the homestead exemption. Can you explain those?
Representative Zocchi.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don't have substantive changes. We are conforming the date since we are no longer allowing the portability going forward. This is just conforming that within statute.
Representative Marshall.
Yeah, and I'm reading here, so the treasurer, though, the notice is going to everyone that could have qualified or is qualified. And I apologize for not reading the amended version, but I'm trying to wrap my head around this now.
Representative Zoka.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I think we are just changing dates. The notice is the same as it was. and I believe we'll have someone from DPT here if you want to ask a specific question about how that works.
Representative Marshall?
I'm good for now. Thank you.
Okay. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, we will go to the witness testimony phase. Michael Smith, Doby Damage, sorry, Matthew Osterman should be online and Keith Erfmeyer should also be online. If you can hit the little button, perfect, let it go green. Floor is yours for two minutes. Please introduce yourself. Stay here and testify on behalf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, honorable committee members. My name is Toby Dommage. I'm the Douglas County Assessor. I want to note that I am not here representing the Colorado Assessors Association. I want to start, however, by thanking, as co-legislative chair of CAA, the sponsors of this bill for listening to our concerns about it in its original states.
Representative Zocchi, thank you very much.
There were multiple amendments that were made as it went through Senate, and those were very much appreciated by the Colorado Assessors. So thank you. Appreciate that. I want to talk on a personal note about the portable exemption. As it's declared in law, the senior qualified residential, I think, there's a few thousand of these, 2,500, 3,000 of these in the state of Colorado. And they're very shortly going to lose their exemption. The average property tax exemption for these households is in the $500 to $1,000 range. The original legislation, as you all know, granted that exemption for about two years. So we're headed into a very difficult period for these people and for our offices because now we have to explain what's about to happen to them, which is their tax bills are going to go up by that much. So that won't happen this next tax bill, but it will happen to the one after that. I'm here today to support this body and the overall body, not letting go of this topic. This is a very important topic. If we think about these households, they're largely retired. Many of them are fixed income. They're looking to have an ability, if they're on the standards in your exemption, to downsize. And what the portable exemption has done the past year and over the next is reduce a barrier to that housing decision that they need to make. It's freed up the marketplace. In other words, they sell their home and makes their large home available to families who need a larger property. And it makes it a little easier for them to get into a smaller home. So I want to finish by saying that I understand that budget's a big concern. I would argue that that concern would get compensated for the real estate transactions and the economic activity that happens when these real estate transactions occur. If these households are able to downsize, the portable exemption allows them to do that. That's going to incur more real estate activity, more housing activity, and that's good for state budget. that's good for property tax revenue, state income tax revenue, and sales tax revenue. Thank you very much for listening to me today. Appreciate it.
Any questions for – well, did we get anyone online? Mr. Erfmeyer, the floor is yours for two minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Keith Erfmeyer. I am the property tax administrator for the state of Colorado. and here to, DOLA is neutral on this bill, but we wanted to point out as it relates to this qualified senior property residence classification, when that bill was created in 2024, it only created the assessment rate for two years, that being 2025 and 2026. So the importance of this bill to us is that unless something is done to establish an assessment rate for those particular properties. Nothing is in Colorado law directing assessors how to apply an assessment rate to those properties beginning in 2027. I think you've heard testimony about that the program would be, you know, ending and that these would, these exemptions would go off the record and be taken away. That that's understandable. And that's what the bill accomplishes. But we either honestly need the program to extend in the future or we need to stop and all those properties to be reclassified as residential in order to have a residential rate that we can apply for taxes. So that is the primary reason that we are here.
Okay. Last call from Michael Smith or Matthew Osterman. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Michael Smith, Colorado State Director for NFIB. NFIB is the largest advocacy organization for small businesses in Colorado representing approximately 6 small businesses in all types of industries NFIB supports economic growth reducing regulatory burdens and protecting small business owners in Colorado. I'm sorry. A malfunction. I'm here today in opposition to Senate Bill 116, and specifically the provision to no longer index the business property, personal property tax exemption to inflation. As you know, business personal property taxes are based on the assessed value of equipment, inventory, and other tangible assets. Inflation can cause market values to rise sharply, but if tax valuations are not adjusted, the tax value of these assets increases without a corresponding increase in the tax rate. And many small businesses pay these taxes year after year on the same items. If inflation is not factored in, the effective tax rate on those assets can rise over time, even if the business's operating costs are stable or declining. Indexing the tax base to inflation ensures that the tax burden grows at a rate consistent with the actual cost of the assets. This prevents sudden disproportionate increases in tax liability during high inflation periods, which can otherwise force businesses to cut costs, reduce investment, or limit hiring. Indexing business personal property taxes for inflation is a way to ensure fairness, prevent tax shocks during high cost periods, and support the economic resilience of small businesses. Without such adjustments, inflation can erode profitability and limit growth potential for Main Street enterprises. With nearly half of all working Coloradans employed by a small business, when small business succeeds, Colorado succeeds. Thank you for allowing me to testify, and I urge your no vote. Thank you.
Committee, any questions for the witnesses? Representative Camacho.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is for anybody. If this bill doesn't pass, what is the practical effect in your view? Who wants to take that? Go for it. Mr. Chair, Mr. Camacho, as Mr. Erfmeyer stated, we'd be removing the exemptions from all of the properties that currently have them approved, as each assessor would do that. In Douglas County, for instance, we have a few...
If the bill does not pass, you'd be removing the...
bill does, whether the bill passes or not, we will do that.
Representative Camacho, follow-up?
I didn't mean to cut you off.
Do you want to explain the rest of your answer?
Yeah. Sorry. So we'd be removing those exemptions whether the bill passes or not, unless it's amended to adjust the language as Mr. Irf Meyers suggested might happen. So accepting that, we'd be pulling it either way. and those property owners would receive in the following year those increased taxes as a result of that.
Follow-up? Representative Marshall.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm hearing that none of these people are going to be grandfathered, but I'm looking at the April 29-26 fiscal note, and it doesn't account for the money we wouldn't be backfilling anymore from the state. So I'm just trying to verify for sure from the department that the people that have it now are going to lose it regardless because again I don see the money being accounted for in the fiscal note because our backfill to the counties wouldn be going out for those properties
Assessor damage.
Mr. Chair and Mr. Marshall, Toby Damish, I can't address the question on the fiscal note. I thought the fiscal note had that backfill stated in there, so perhaps someone else can adjust that. But there is no grandfathering, and we will be pulling those exemptions. Thank you.
Representative Marshall, we do have the fiscal analyst here. Should we call him up? All right, Representative Marshall, ask your question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the fiscal analyst, I'm looking at the April 29, 2026 fiscal note, and supposedly it's about $1.6 million, I'm assuming, for the 22,000-plus homes that have already gotten this homestead exemption. Yet if we get rid of it, the state wouldn't be backfilling that $1.6 million, and I should see an increase in revenue on the fiscal note, shouldn't I? So I'm trying to find where that money went.
Mr. Hanson.
Thank you for the question. I'm David Hanson, Legislative Council staff and fiscal note analyst for this bill. So that actually, this was passed with Senate Bill 24-111, and that was for only two years of benefit, 25 and 26. So that has already been accounted for in our forecast and budgeting. So it's not related to this fiscal note. So it's already been accounted for in existing law. What this bill is doing now is the actual classification of the qualified senior primary residence was written into the bill in perpetuity. So what this bill is doing is just ending the requirement to accept applications for the senior primary residence benefit, it, make sure that the DPT does not still have to cross-examine applications and stuff like that. So it's just putting an end date to the administrative functions of this classification.
Follow Representative Marshall. Representative Camacho.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is for the assessor. Did I hear you say that if this bill doesn't pass, then assessors don't know what to assess these folks? Is that what I heard in your testimony? No.
Mr. Davich. All right, what did you testify to then?
Yeah, Mr. Chair and Mr. Camacho, thank you. No, I just meant to state very clearly that the exemptions would go away. But I understand this bill cleans up that language so we know what to do. That's my understanding of this bill in terms of the classification question, which is would be returning them to regular residential classification.
Mr. Erfmeyer, do you want to weigh in?
Yes, Mr. Chair. If this bill does not pass, it's essentially silent on what to do. We've got a classification that these properties are in with no assessment rate assigned to them because there isn't an end date. So by ending, if this bill were to pass, it end dates that particular classification of property, and we turn them all from qualified senior primary residence just back to plain old residential property and it gets the same assessment rates really two of them as all other residential property So if nothing is done the bill doesn pass It actually silent on what assessment rate to assign those properties beginning in 2027 Representative Camacho
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what rate would you assign those properties at this rate, this bill didn't pass?
Mr. Irfmeyer. Mr. Chair, Representative Camacho, I would probably consult with the Attorney General's office, I think there would be two arguments. One would be logically you would assume that it would be the same as all other residential property. The other would be that there is no expressed assessment rate as there is for all other property and therefore it would be 100%. So I don't think either of those are spelled out. I think it would be up to the attorney general, a logical person would assume to assign the same rate as all other residential property. But then you'd have a classification, even if you can get the right assessment rates on per the Attorney General's office, where there's no backfill and no discount, no exemption being applied to any of these properties. And administratively, the program just goes on and on with no benefit.
Any follow-up, Representative Camacho?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if this program went on and on with no benefit, it would be up to the legislature to essentially fund that benefit in the future?
Mr. Erfmeyer.
Mr. Chair, Representative Camacho, I think, yeah, that would be the other option here is to extend the program and continue to fund it. And it would likely continue to grow as it has been the last couple of years.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And for the assessor, in a hypothetical world, if this bill didn't pass, what would be your thought process on how to assess those rates as putting your assessor hat on?
How would you go about doing that? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Camacho, appreciate that. agree with the property tax administrator that that would be an unknown and we'd have to evaluate that with legal counsel. That's a question mark. If I might add, I'm not advocating as an opposition to not pass the bill. I'm advocating probably, I would say, an amendment to extend this program as it was originally written and amended in the Senate. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, it sounds like if this bill doesn't pass, you functionally get that amendment. Is that right?
Mr. Diermus. Mr. Chair and Mr. Camacho, I don't know the answer to that question. If the bill doesn't pass and nothing else is done, I think there's a lot of open questions, which have been asked by Mr. Erfmeyer.
Okay. That's a final question, Rob.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to have to get a bigger flag. So there's been a lot of discussions on rates, things. You talked about, Mr. Domini, about $2,500 through $3,000. Can you bring it down to what will happen in the numbers? I mean, what fiscal impact will these people see? How much money will they lose? How much will they additionally have to pay in taxes? However you want to quantify that. Is there a quantifiable number that you can attach to what they will be impacted by?
Mr. Assistant.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Hartzook. In Douglas County, for instance, we have about 340 of these approved exemptions, and they are currently receiving an average property tax adjustment or reduction of about $695. I don't have the data in front of me for statewide, but if you could extrapolate that to the rest of the state. I hope that answers your question. Thank you.
Okay, that's all the time we have for this panel. Thank you very much. Last call for witnesses on 116. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Amendment phase, bill sponsor.
No amendments, Mr. Chair.
No amendments from the bill sponsor. Any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up, bill sponsor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to those who testified. I think that they've laid out why this is a necessary bill. I hope that we can get some unanimous support for it because it is something we truly have to do. I do want to just say that I support making the senior tax exemption portable. Initially, when we were bringing this bill, we wanted to make that permanent. And unfortunately, we are just in a budget climate that that is not possible. And I'm honestly grateful that we're able to have the senior tax exemption at all. And I think that that's going to be a question going forward. And so if that is something that this body wants to keep, if the voters want to keep, then I think the state really needs to reevaluate its fiscal policy and whether we want to continue having a system where people in poverty pay the same tax rate as billionaires. But that's not the bill before you today. The bill before you today is making some necessary changes, as well as an important policy I think capping the business personal property exemption threshold at $58,000 makes a lot of sense given the state's obligation to backfill. And I ask for your yes vote.
Closing comments from the committee. Representative Marshall.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't planning on saying anything because I came in going to be an easy yes. But after hearing everything, I'm really concerned because, again, we make choices down here. The fact that we are not, and I understand that when we initially put the portability in it was for only two years and people should be on notice of that, but the people that moved and got it and are now relying on it, they should have been grandfathered and if it's about 1.6 million, I can think of a certain office in Oedit that is funded with 1.6 million dollars which I will not name but the committee I think knows what I'm talking about. we make the choice and I would have made the choice to grandfather these people so for those reasons I'm going to have to be a no. Any closing
other closing comments? Representative Sober. Thank you Mr. Chair
and I had very similar sentiments to my good colleague from Douglas County that I had first looked at this and it's like this seems pretty reasonable I've not been a big fan of the business personal property tax so Having a threshold for exemption does make sense. I mean, that kind of splits the middle ground approach. But I am a little concerned that we had individuals come asking for an amendment here for some clarification, and we don't see that. And so that's something I do find quite concerning.
Any other closing comments? this committee will stand in a brief recess
Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
The committee will come back to order. We are going to lay Senate Bill 116 over until the end of the calendar. If we can do 114, representatives to tone and sober. All right. Who wants to start? Representative to tone. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Members, this is a bill that's a tone so special. It's not concerning death, so don't think that. This is actually a really good bill. This is a bill that's come back from last year. We had a lot of conversations since last year when we were working on this bill. And this is a balanced approach that's locally driven, and it's designed to support Colorado's distillers while strengthening community oversight and protections. Across our state, distillers are facing real economic pressure, limited access to retail markets, higher effective tax burdens compared to beer and wine, and fewer opportunities to reach customers directly. Many of these are locally owned businesses that contribute to our main streets, our tourism economy and our rural communities this bill takes a measured approach to help them adapt without changing the footprint of where they operate To be clear this bill does not expand the number of sales rooms a distiller may have under current law. Instead, it creates a limited optional permit that allows a distiller at its existing licensed premises or approved sales room to serve a capped amount of alcoholic beverage purchased through licensed wholesalers and only for on-premises consumption. This is not about turning distilleries into bars or liquor stores. Off-premises sales remain limited to the distiller's own products and there are clear safeguards in place. Food must be available. The revenue from wholesaler products can't exceed 50% of the alcohol sales. One of the most important parts of the bill and where it has evolved significantly from last year is local control. Last year, some of you raised concerns that local governments did not have strong enough roles in the process, and we heard that feedback. And that's why Senate Bill 114 addresses those concerns directly by putting local governments at the front end of the decision-making process. Before the state can issue a permit, the application must first obtain approval from the local licensing authority. Cities and counties have real authority to evaluate whether a proposal fits their community, including considerations like neighborhood compatibility, safety standards, and local standards. This is a meaningful shift from last year's approach. It ensures that the decisions are not just informed by local input, but they're driven by it. So this is a collaborative compromise. It provides a modest, responsible tool to help small manufacturers remain viable while ensuring that local communities retain control over what happens within their boundaries. And if you don't want to issue the permit, if you're a city, you don't have to. You don't have to issue it. So not sure why anybody would want to be against it, because you don't have to issue it if you don't want to. but we're asking you for a yes vote on Senate Bill 114.
Representative Sober.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, Colorado's distilling industry is something we've long been proud of here within this state. Our distillers face higher effective tax burdens than beer and wine producers do. They don't have the same access to grocery stores or convenience store shelves, such as beer and wine, has access to. and in recent years, several Colorado distilleries have closed their doors. We've seen businesses like Cooper Mews Distillery in Fort Collins,
Lee Spirits, 1350 Distillery in Colorado Springs, and Golden Moon Distillery in Golden shut down. These are small, locally owned manufacturers. They are employers, they are downtown anchors, and they are struggling to compete in a difficult and evolving market. Senate Bill 114 is a targeted practical response. This bill allows a distiller at their existing licensed premise or already approved sales room to apply for a permit to serve a limited amount of alcoholic beverages purchased from licensed Colorado wholesalers. That flexibility helps these businesses create more competitive, customer-friendly experience. But this bill includes very strong guardrails. on-premise consumption only for other products. A 50% cap on wholesaler products. Food must be available and there must be a separate permit per location Importantly local control is preserved A distiller must first obtain approval from the local licensing authority before the state can even issue a permit. This is about fairness in helping Colorado small businesses compete responsibly, and I would urge a committee to vote yes. I would also add that if you're a reader of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, you may have noticed that a couple of our Colorado distilleries recently won. the top prize at a whiskey competition. Any questions for the bill sponsors? Seeing none, we're going to go to the witness testimony phase. We've got five people signed up, so we'll come up all at once. Erica Rogers. She might be remote now. Sam Gentry, Cara Miller, Tom Perrick, and Stephanie Hicks. Okay, we'll start on this end and work our way across. State your name for the record. Floor is yours for two minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Cara Miller. I'm here today on behalf of the Colorado Distillers Guild and Stranahan's Colorado Whiskey. I want to thank our sponsors for all of the work that they've put into this legislation. We did bring something similar last year, and due to concerns that were brought by local governments and Restaurant Association and Tavern League and others about not having parity and how licensing worked, we voluntarily laid that bill down. We worked with everybody over the interim and during this legislative session to get everybody to a good place. That includes about a dozen local governments, CML, the wholesalers, restaurant association, taverns, Colorado wineries, the liquor enforcement division, the AG's office, and the independent liquor stores, all of which are satisfied with the bill as it comes before you. It is a big move for Colorado distillers. We've gone from being one of the top distilling states in the nation to only having 82 distilleries left. Because of the changes that have been made, both legislatively and on the ballot, we've got a decreased market and decreased access for where we can sell our products. We are reliant on those tasting rooms, and we need to make them viable. That's what the bill does. We really appreciate everybody who has worked with us. It's been a long road, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Miller. Please hold for questions. Ms. Hicks.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Stephanie Hicks. I am the Executive Director of the Tavern League of Colorado. We are the voice of Colorado's independent bars and restaurants. I'd like to start off by thanking the sponsors for hearing our concerns and working with us to address them over the last two years. I don't make a habit of testifying a neutral position, but I want to highlight just the tremendous amount of work that was done on this bill to get it to where it is today, just for the liquor industry. The Tavern League has always advocated for a level regulatory playing field and the amendments that were adopted in the Senate achieve that. The proponents worked very hard to address our concerns and we appreciate their partnership on this issue, as Cara pointed out. We do oppose any further changes to the bill and I would respectfully request that you honor the current version of the bill. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Next witness. Good afternoon, my name
Erica Rogers, I'm the Deputy Executive Director for the Denver Department of Excise and Licensing and Consumer Protection. We changed our name last year. We're the local licensing authority for Denver liquor licenses. I'm actually here to ask you to vote no on this bill. We opposed a similar version of the bill when it was introduced in the House and provided a letter outlining three key concerns, and two of our concerns remain unaddressed in the bill before you. The bill still expands the breadth of privileges for certain manufacturers in a way not afforded to other manufacturers and restaurants, and we believe that creates inequities in the liquor code. Second, doing so deviates from longstanding policy norms around the separation of privileges for manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. We see removal of this longstanding separation for a single business type inequitable to the hundreds of restaurants in Denver who have already complied with the current framework. Our third concern was related to local input, and amendments to this bill have added a local permit requirement. However, these do not resolve. These exacerbate our concerns here. The bill provides no opt-in, no opt-out, and no lead time for implementation. This means that local jurisdictions will be required to accept, process, and administer these applications in our current budget cycle, creating further strain on resources. Most importantly, we have serious enforcement concerns when the underlying license is issued by the state, but the additional privileges are only covered by a local permit. No other liquor license works this way, and it blurs the lines between state and local enforcement efforts. At best, locals will have to try to duplicate state enforcement efforts, and at worst, enforcement issues will be missed or unaddressed due to a lack of clarity. In sum, we think the bill would further complicate an already complex liquor code, create inequity among business types operating in Denver, and burden local jurisdictions. Ultimately, this would force us to stand up a brand-new liquor permit at the expense of more meaningful services to our constituents. And for these reasons, we ask that you vote now. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer questions.
Thank you. Next witness.
Good evening. My name is Sam Gentry. I'm here on behalf of Stranahan's Colorado Whiskey, where I serve as the Director of Hospitality. hospitality. Stratans is a Colorado distillery deeply rooted in the state's economy, agriculture, and tourism. I've had the pleasure of seeing that impact firsthand through thousands of guest interactions over the years. I'm here in support of this bill, which would allow distilleries to expand our service offerings to include beer and wine in our tasting rooms. For us, this is about accessibility and sustainability. Our priority will always be to sell our own spirits, but today's consumer behavior is changing. Groups visit with a range of preferences. When even one person does not drink spirits, we often lose the entire visit. This bill gives us a practical way to meet guests where they are. It allows us to welcome more people through our doors and hopefully ultimately grow our business. Our brand homes are educational destinations that showcase Colorado craftsmanship and history. We know that 95% of guests leave with a more positive view of our brand, but the reality is that our business ship is declining. We need more opportunities to get people through the door. This is a reasonable modernization of the law that helps Colorado distilleries remain competitive while continuing to support local tourism and local businesses. We're proud to be a part of what makes Colorado special and this bill helps ensure that we can continue to be for years to come.
Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for this panel of witnesses? Representative Hartsook.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of quick questions. So local control, our side, of course, we like that. Like Strinehan been through that two or several times But this applies across the state So I curious for Denver You can decide whether you want to do it or not I don understand your hesitancy I mean, why is it you don't want to do that when the ball, even if you had all the lead time, the ball's still in your court. So I'm missing the point where you can't meet it from a regulatory perspective when the control starts with you. You get to decide. Nobody's telling you what to do. So how do you – what's that problem?
Ms. Rogers.
Erica Rogers, Denver Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection. We actually are required by the bill to issue licenses. We have a local input on the permit, which would only cover the additional privileges of the permit, not the underlying license. But without causes for denial, we can't just deny licenses because we don't feel like issuing them. We can't opt out in that way. So I think that's a bit of a lack of clarity around how that works.
Representative Hartzell.
Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. The feedback I've gotten from my district down in Parker is they get to have that input, so maybe some of the other panel members can clarify, because there seems to be a conflict out there, and I'm not sure where that's at. So who can clarify on that?
First we'll go to Mrs. Rogers, and then we'll go to Ms. Miller.
Thank you. there's no language in the bill that allows us to opt out so regardless of whether anyone would apply for this we still have to spend resources to stand up the permit and if someone were to apply our local input is limited to certain things already in state code and so we would have to
rule on that either way there's no ability for us not to provide that local input. Ms. Miller?
Thank you Mr. Chair thank you for the question the locals that we worked with and I mentioned we We worked specifically over a dozen localities and CML to put specific amendments and language into the bill to allow them, because they wanted this control. We gave them the control. If they don't want to issue the permit, they just don't. I mean, just don't issue the permit.
Follow up.
That's what we've heard from every other locality that we've worked with. And we've worked with folks for months. We didn't hear this complaint until third reading in the first chamber.
Okay. We actually have Mr. Parrick here. He got online. Sir, if you could unmute yourself, the floor is yours for two minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me?
We can.
Thank you. I appreciate you and the rest of the members. I am Tom Parrick. I'm National Director of State Government Affairs for American Distilled Spirits Alliance. We represent roughly 60% of all distilled spirit sales in the U.S., hundreds of household and recognizable names, including Stranahan's Colorado Whiskey is a member. Good to see Mr. Gentry. Thanks for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 114, which would ease the current restrictions on Colorado distilleries. As I stated in my comment letter, the sole intent of this bill is to enhance distillery and tasting room experiences. Currently, only products made by a distillery are allowed to be served in that distillery. That can be quite a disappointing surprise to guests who think they can order a wine or a beer or a cider or a different kind of alcohol than what is being distilled, and they cannot. It's also disappointing to the distillery operator who might lose that perfect opportunity immediately following a tour to have a new and potentially long-term customer that we suddenly can't accommodate. And that exactly what this bill is trying to solve Colorado distilleries and their tasting rooms are a destination They more of an experience They are not bars in the traditional sense We in the throes of the Stanley Cup The World Cup frenzy is right around the corner It is not likely that a group of friends are going to gather at a specialty tasting room for the big game. We think they would prefer to go to their neighborhood bar or restaurant, and that's exactly as it should be. It's important to note that the distiller's own products will always be the center of the distillery drinking menu? After all, that is the point of the tasting room to attract guests, showcase local products, gain new and loyal customers. Having to say no, though, because of extremely limited selection actually costs new and repeat customers. I'll close with this. Distilleries in their tasting rooms are just trying to serve and satisfy their guests when a distillery guest might want a wine instead of a whiskey or a beer instead of a bourbon. We thank you for the opportunity to comment and urge you to pass 114. Thank you.
Thank you. Representative Camacho.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I believe this is for the official from Denver. I heard a witness at the other end of the table say you just didn't have to issue the permit. And then I saw a disagreeable look on your face. Can you explain your position? Yes. Apologies. No means to be disrespectful. Thank you for the question.
to deny individual applications simply because we would like to opt out of the permit entirely would be considered arbitrary and capricious. And we would not be permitted to do that as an administrative agency under administrative law. And so simply denying individual applications as a policy matter wouldn't pass legal muster is our rate of the bill. Representative Camacho.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I understand that if you make an arbitrary and capricious decision by just wholesale, say I'm going to deny every single permit, but the city would still have the ability to deny a permit for other bases. So, for example, if they didn't have the controls in place or they didn't have the space or they didn't have whatever else the city of Denver looks at, that would still be within your control and would not be arbitrary and capricious, right?
Ms. Rogers.
Thank you. So we are limited in what we can use as standards for issuance or denial. We don't get to set those at the local level. So to say that that's local control is a bit of a misnomer. That's still set in state liquor code.
Representative Camacho.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you elaborate?
You said it's not local.
I mean.
Ms. Rogers.
Sorry. Thank you. Yeah, who sets that and what? Go ahead. It's set in state liquor code, and the LED is held, I think, pretty standardly that local jurisdictions don't get to interfere with that. I'm not here to push back on that. I'm just trying to ensure that that's well understood.
May I dialogue just briefly?
Yes. So, I mean, every local jurisdiction has the ability to issue a liquor license. I mean, right? Like, there's local control in that aspect. The state isn't telling you what you can and can't do there. like the local government is in control, and you're saying this is different?
I'm saying the standards by which we approve or deny those licenses are set by state code and state rule. So if you could humor me, what are those standards?
They're throughout the code.
There are too many to list, but we wouldn't be able to, for example, adopt an ordinance locally that would have different or additional protections for Denver, which are different than every other place in the state, I understand. You're all dialogue.
Oh, go ahead.
Thank you very much I thought I was just dialoguing with my dentist I know I thought I had to ask if I was going to add to the dialogue We worked with the state and we worked with CML and even did a second reading special amendment to change language that we had already agreed upon in principle to put in matching language that is exactly what is required for all of the locals so that it would be specific so that all of the licensing and abilities for the state license and the local license would match exactly where it is in statute.
So we went as far as we could to ensure that the locals were satisfied with it, and we got the language specifically from CML to do that. We were hopeful this was going to make everybody happy. Anything further?
Representative Hartzik.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One quick follow-up. I mean, I ran the original bill for the Parker Wine Walks. The whole state loves. and in that i worked closely with led to ensure that local control the the permit could go through there they were the first ones to hack off on it but every municipality could decide the how they want to do it where the security was all that was done with with with absolute local control i mean we i sat down personally with led and the director on numerous locations to make sure we got that straight so i guess i'm a little confused i know it's been done because i did it is there i'm not following why Denver can't do that. I mean, that's the part I don't get. We've already done this. I've seen it done, so I'm not sure where the impasse is at. If there's a way that we need to fix that, I'm all ears, but I just haven't seen that. I don't want to respond
to that. Okay, any further questions for this panel of witnesses? Seeing none, thank you all for your time this evening. Last call for witnesses on Senate Bill 114. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed Amendment phase, bill sponsored We have no amendments Any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed Wrap up, bill sponsors
Representative Sober Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members At the end of the day, this bill is about fairness and common sense. It gives Colorado distillers a limited, responsible way to compete in a market that has changed without expanding locations, without weakening local control, and without creating loopholes. It supports small businesses, protects communities, and keeps decisions where they belong at the local level. If we want to keep these locally operated manufacturers open, employing people, and contributing to our economies, this is a step in the right direction and I would respectfully ask the committee for a yes vote.
Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill really reflects careful listening and collaboration and respect for the local communities. It gives small Colorado distillers a modest tool to remain viable while ensuring local governments still have meaningful voice in how that tool is used. This is not an expansion of footprint or a shift in the balance of our alcohol system. and it is a measured adjustment that recognizes the challenges these businesses face today. At its core, this bill is about supporting local manufacturers, preserving jobs, and keeping our main streets vibrant, all while maintaining strong safeguards and local oversight. And I ask for your yes vote on the bill.
Closing comments from the committee.
Representative Brooks. Sure, thank you. I appreciate your work on this, and I do see and believe in a local community flexibility that was discussed, and I'll be happy to support the bill tonight. Any other closing comments from the committee?
Seeing none, a proper motion. Routes 114 to the cow. Madam Vice Chair.
I move Senate Bill 114 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Second.
Second by Representative Sober.
Please poll the committee. Representatives Brooks.
Yes.
Macho.
Yes.
Garcia.
Gonzalez.
Yes.
Hartsock.
Yes.
Marshall.
Yes.
Soper.
Yes.
Stewart.
Yes.
Zokay.
Yes.
Bottom Vice Chair.
Yes. Mr. Chair. Yes, that passes unanimously 11 to 0. I'd like to call back up 116. Closing comments for the committee on 116, Representative Zokai.
Do you want me to run back?
No, you can do it from the wall.
Great, thanks.
Does anyone have any other closing comments on 116?
Representative Camacho?
Okay, seeing none. And a proper motion, Routes 116 to the Committee on Appropriations.
Representative Zokai.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move Senate Bill 116 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.
Second.
Second by Madam Vice Chair.
Please poll the committee. Representatives Brooks.
No.
Camacho.
Yes.
Garcia.
Gonzalez.
No.
Art Sook.
No.
Marshall.
No.
Zoper.
No.
Stewart.
Yes.
Zocay.
Yes.
Tatum.
Yes. Mr. Chair. Yes, that passes 6-5. Okay, next up, Senate Bill 80. Thank you for your patience. Who would like to kick us off? Thank you. I can't.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One amendment or two.
Representative English.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 2680, the Cradle to Career Grant Program. This legislation is about building opportunities from the very beginning of a child's life through adulthood by connecting families to the educational health workforce and community support they need to thrive. Too often families face fragmented systems that make it difficult to access resources, especially in communities experiencing poverty and economic instability. Senate Bill 2680 creates a framework for collaboration between schools, nonprofits, higher education institutions, local governments, and tribal organizations so we can better align services and improve long-term outcomes for Colorado children and families. This bill is also physically responsible. Senate Bill 2680 does not create a significant physical burden on the state nor does it rely on ongoing unrestricted general fund commitments for its launch Instead it leverages partnerships philanthropy grants and community investment to support innovative locally driven solutions that focus on prevention educational attainment workforce readiness and economic mobility This is about strategic investments upstream so we can reduce costly downstream challenges later and help kids come out of poverty. And with that, I ask for a yes vote.
Thank you. Thank you.
Representative Lukens.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, members of the Finance Committee. We are grateful for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 80. I am a high school teacher. I didn't just see test scores or attendance sheets. I saw students navigating adult-sized problems. I saw kids trying to stay awake in class because they were working late to help their families. I saw students who were every bit as talented as everyone else, but whose futures were being shaped not by their ability, but by instability at home. And when you teach in or work with rural communities, those realities hit even harder. Because when something goes wrong, a lost job, a health crisis, a housing issue, there isn't always a safety net nearby. There isn't always another provider down the street. Sometimes there's nothing but distance and delay. So what happens? The burden falls on the family, and too often it falls on the child. What I learned in the classroom is this. We cannot expect young people to succeed if the systems around them are set up for struggle. Senate Bill 80 recognizes that generational poverty is not accidental. It is systemic, and it is deeply tied to geography. In rural Colorado, where you live can determine whether you can access health care, child care, job training, or even stable housing. This bill establishes a cradle-to-career, place-based strategy with one clear goal, real economic mobility for families. This means getting ahead of a crisis, not just reacting to it. It means ensuring access to health care and mental health services so a diagnosis doesn't become a downward spiral. It means stable housing so children aren't uprooted again and again. It means workforce pathways that lead to sustaining wages, especially in rural areas where opportunity must be intentionally built and supported. And it also means something that we don't do nearly enough, coordination, because right now families are expected to navigate a maze of disconnected systems, systems that don't talk to each other, don't align, and too often leave the people behind. And this bill changes that. It requires one accountable community-rooted organization to bring those pieces together to track outcomes and to ensure that investments are actually moving the needle. The bill establishes a cradle-to-career grant program within the Colorado Department of Human Services to support locally-led solutions. And importantly, it does so without a general fund appropriation, relying instead on a $900,000 cash fund allocation contingent on sufficient gifts, grants, and donations, which we have secured and are prepared to go to appropriations with should the committee approve us to get out of the finance committee. I also want to note that with the inclusion of L1 in the Senate Local Government Committee, there is a fiscal mechanism that ensures that this program will not be operational until the funds have been raised. I also want to note that we did hand out L11, which adds an additional guardrail, and we can talk more about that in the amendment phase. We will be asking for your yes vote.
Okay. Committee, any questions?
Representative Marshall. Thank you Mr Chair So I really confused if it based on donations and gifts and grants Why isn this just set up as a non charitable entity Why does it have to be based inside the government Representative Lukens Thank you Mr Chair
Thank you.
And this question came up in the Education Committee as well, which is why I believe there's some laughter coming from a member of the Education Committee. So I also think there is value to it being run in the Department of Human Services.
There's value in state partnership in working together with these entities and working together with these local groups that are already based in community to ensure that this program succeeds. So that's what's important about this program is that it is rooted in community-based collaboration, but that is also where we deemed that this would be the best location for the grant program to be housed would be in the Department of Human Services. Hello, Representative Marshall. Any other questions from the committee for the bill's sponsors? Seeing none, thank you. We will go to the witness testimony phase. We have two people signed up, Stuart Jenkins and Bev Stables. The Stables might be online. And anyone else who would like to testify on Senate Bill 80, come on down. Mr. Jenkins, we'll start with you. Floor George for two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Always a pleasure to be back before House Finance. My name is Drew Jenkins, and I'm the Executive Director of the Color Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs, representing our 18 club organizations, serving young people through after school and summer learning programs across the state. Today we're here to express our strong support for Senate Bill 80. At its core, this bill is about investing in and bringing together the systems that support positive youth development across the continuum of a child's life, and that is exactly where Boys and Girls Clubs focus our work every day. First, this bill recognizes something that we see in our clubs, that learning opportunity do not stop at the school bell. Kids spend more than 80% of their waking hours outside of school, and after-school and summer programs are one of the most effective strategies we have to help close the opportunity gap and ensure economic mobility. Second, we strongly support the bill's intentional focus on reaching youth and families facing the greatest barriers. Children growing up in communities of concentrated poverty face significant challenges to accessing after-school programs, as well as many of the other programs listed in this bill. In Colorado alone, the demand for after-school programs is enormous. More than 463,000 children would be enrolled in an after-school program if one were available, yet nearly three and four children are currently missing out. Target investments like those proposed in this bill are critical to closing that gap and expanding opportunity. Finally, as the sponsors mentioned in their opening remarks, we are especially encouraged by the bill's emphasis on partnership. The challenges facing young people today do not exist in silos. This bill brings together providers across sectors with local governments to work collaboratively. That approach reflects what we know works, coordinated community-based systems that meet kids where they are and support them at every stage of development. It is essential that Colorado invests in frameworks like this bill that create the full ecosystem of support that surround young people and that families need. Boys and girls clubs are proud to serve as that kind of partnering communities across Colorado, and we see this bill as an opportunity to strengthen these connections and expand impact. For that reason, we ask for your support of Senate Bill 80. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go online to Bev Stables. Thank you Chair and members of the committee My name is Bev Stables I here on behalf speaking on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 municipal members in support of Senate Bill 80 Across Colorado our cities and towns see firsthand how difficult it can be for families to move out of poverty when support is fragmented, hard to access, or simply unavailable. Local governments are often part of the front line, working with schools, nonprofits, and community partners, but too often we are trying to stitch together solutions without the coordinated resources needed to create lasting change. Senate Bill 80 offers a smarter path forward. By establishing the Cradle to Career Grant Program, this bill recognizes that economic mobility is not the result of a single intervention, but of a connected system of supports that begins before birth and continues into adulthood. This program would empower local governments and others to design community-based solutions that reflect local needs. It would help connect children and youth to high-quality early learning, educational, and extracurricular opportunities, which are critical building blocks for long-term success. At the same time, it would ensure families can access essential health and social services, improving prenatal health, strengthening early childhood outcomes, and creating a stable foundation for learning. Just as importantly, this bill looks beyond the classroom by supporting workforce readiness and wealth-building opportunities. It acknowledges that true economic mobility requires pathways to good jobs, financial stability, and long-term prosperity. For municipalities, this program is about alignment and impact. It allows us to coordinate efforts across sectors and invest in strategies that are proven to work. It also gives communities the flexibility to innovate while remaining accountable for results. Senate Bill 80 helps communities do what they are already striving to do, only better, more efficiently, and with greater reach. On behalf of CML, I urge you to support this important legislation. Thank you to the sponsors for running this bill, and thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, committee. Any questions for the witnesses? Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this was probably a question I should have asked the sponsors I was planning on. But do you know, I mean, if this is a big local effort, why is this Perry Jacobson firm giving us advice from Annapolis, Maryland? Do you know this firm? I'm just curious. Mr. Jenkins? Ms. Stables, do you want to take the question? I think this is probably a question that's appropriate for sponsors. I'm not familiar with that end of things. I just, you know, the local emphasis really has to do with the receipt of these grant funds for local governments. I do also know there was some wonderful testimony in the House Education Committee where some community organizers spoke about the success of similar grant programs in other states. I'm not sure if that's related to the funding source here, but I know that that was testimony from that committee. Follow Representative Marshall. Okay, thank you. Last call for witnesses on Senate Bill 80. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Amendment phase, bill sponsors. We have one amendment that's been passed out to the committee. Tell us about L11. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Finance Committee. So L11 actually was created in conjunction with Rep. Garcia. So this was a conversation that Rep. Garcia and I were having around creating additional guardrails, and I understand that this is Rep. Garcia's line of work. So if you wanted to also explain your thought behind this, I think that would be helpful. Yes, Representative Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. So as I was reading through the bill, I think what struck me was understanding the intention of the bill and how school districts, charter schools that are nonprofits and how organizations operate together. And so I wanted to make sure that the intention of this bill to be supporting this type of community school partnership and making sure that the support was really intended for the community organizations and not necessarily for the schools. It just brought me to these two particular guidelines of making sure that if a local education agency does apply for the funding, that none of it is used to support any of its general operating, but that it's meant to go to whether it's a subcontract to whatever community partnership it is, or also if it's an application that has a local education provider and a nonprofit that they're both on the application together. Committee, any questions on L11? Seeing none, Madam Vice Chair. Oh, wait, any objection? Please move L11. I move amendment L011. Second by Representative Garcia. Committee, any objection to L11? See, none. L11 is passed. Any other amendments? Bill sponsors. None from the bill sponsors. Committee, any amendments? None from the committee. The amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Bill sponsors. Representative English. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to go back briefly to Representative Marshall's question about the nonprofit. And I just wanted to say that Senate Bill 2680 is intentionally structured within government because the challenges we are trying to address already intersect with public systems that families rely on every day, which are education, early childhood services, workforce development, health service, and economic mobility programs. programs. And a standalone nonprofit, while it is valuable, it would not have the same level of statewide coordination, accountability, transparency, or ability to align public resources across agencies and communities. And this bill does not replace nonprofits. It strengthens and partners with them. In fact, community-based nonprofits are eligible partners and prospective subcontractors under the grant program because they are often closest to the needs of the families. And what Senate Bill 2680 does is create a statewide framework that ensures collaboration rather than competition between organizations and systems. It allows the state to collect outcomes, data, measure effectiveness, and ensure taxpayer transparency while still empowering local communities to design solutions that work for them. And it's not creating a large new government bureaucracy. The bill is designed to leverage existing partnerships, philanthropic support, and community-driven innovation. Housing the program within a state provides continuity, oversight, and sustainability that a standalone nonprofit may struggle to maintain over time, especially when serving communities statewide. Colorado families should not have to navigate disconnected systems alone. This bill creates accountability and coordination at the state level while still allowing nonprofits and local communities to lead the work on the ground The goal is not to grow government for the sake of government The goal is to create sustainable structure that ensures children and families can consistently access opportunity regardless of where they live. And as a lifelong educator and lifelong learner and former Board of Education Director myself, I have seen firsthand how early investment changes lives. When we support children and families before crises occur, we create healthier communities and stronger economic outcomes for generations to come. I respectfully ask for your support on Senate Bill 2680. Thank you. Representative Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the Finance Committee, and thank you to my good co-prime sponsor for that great closing. In short, Senate Bill 80 establishes the Cradle to Career Grant Program to fund community-based partnerships that help children and families move out of poverty through coordinated education, health, and workforce supports. We respectfully ask for your yes vote. Committee, any closing comments? Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm putting on the record just my concerns, and while being no, this just seems very odd. It is something to put in, and I've expressed to the sponsors, I've seen it happen where you put together a nice, political, good-duder organization, and it becomes, because it's a political organization, and becomes politicized and becomes just a slush fund for political patronage rather than anything that was its original intent. I mean, we've had the United Way for 125 years, so sustainability. And I'll be blunt, the charities I've worked with are far more transparent than anything I've seen in the government with their finances because they have to be if they want people to donate to them. And when we get tax money, we get the money, and we don't have to. We're supposed to, but we're not. So I don't see why the people who like this just don't pull an LLC. And if this is what they want to do, do it. So I'm going to have to be a no because I don't see the crying need, and I'm just worried with so many out-of-state people being involved. Yeah, I see this not winding up in a good place in 10 or 20 years. Any other closing comments from the committee? Seeing none, Madam Vice Chair, a proper motion routes Senate Bill 80 to the Committee on Appropriations as amended. I move Senate Bill 80 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. Second by Representative Stewart. Please poll the committee. Representatives Brooks? No. Camacho? Yes. Garcia? Yes. Gonzalez? Yes. Art Sook? No. Marshall. No. Soper. Excused. Stewart. Yes. Zocay. Yes. Tatum. Yes. Mr. Chair. Yes, that passes 7-3 with one excused. Next up, if we can get the bill sponsors in here for Senate Bill 3. so Thank you All right, who wants to start? Representative Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the committee. I appreciate your attention. Senate Bill 26003 concerns the end-of-life management for EV batteries. At present, Colorado has no real answer to the question, what happens to an EV battery when a vehicle reaches the end of its life, meaning that unwanted EV batteries may end up in landfills or stored unsafely in our communities and that we cannot reuse the critical minerals that they contain. I have a Prius with 182,000 miles on it, so it's particularly salient to me because it's something that is probably right around the corner for me. I'm going to drive that car until it falls apart. but at some point it will. So this bill is really about creating a solution to that problem of my 16-year-old Prius. It's about establishing a policy framework to ensure that unwanted EV batteries are accounted for at the end of their life of a vehicle and in order to protect the safety of Colorado communities and consumers while bolstering the sustainability of the EV industry overall. So what does this really do, and how has this bill gotten to us? Well, the bill is really a product of sustained and deep stakeholding over the last several months between environmental advocates, vehicle manufacturers, battery recyclers, small businesses, and especially the small businesses that dismantle vehicles. And the legislative solution that we have establishes kind of a first in the nation, critical mineral recovery rates for recycling EV batteries. Bill drafting has taken place hand in hand with the auto industry to ensure that their perspectives were incorporated into the program. And so we have brought a bill that we believe is really, I hope, supported by a broad set of key industry partners, including GM, the Alliance of Automotive Innovation, Redwood Materials, and the Automotive Recyclers Association. So I think that this first-in-the-nation policy framework requires vehicle manufacturers to collect unwanted batteries, and we will support the manufacturers, local vehicle dismantlers, and the state, all while ensuring the vehicles moving us toward lower carbon emissions are responsibly managed and don't create unintended environmental harm. because of all of the work that we did with this deeply collaborative process, the Senate passed the bill 32 to 3. And that I'll turn it over to my co-prime sponsor. Rebecca Stewart. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my co and especially thank you to all of the work work that so many folks that you going to hear coming behind us have done to get this bill almost across the finish line In this process, we have responded to industry concerns shifting away from the battery stewardship organization framework to placing the responsibilities and tasks directly on the auto manufacturers, which was to be very clear at their request. We actively worked to reduce the cost of administration through a streamlined program design and providing for lower fees for automakers and less cost to the state. Negotiations and conversations continued, and there was agreement on definitions and clarifications of chain of responsibility in addition to some other items. The structure of the waste management community was modified to address their concerns. We've also incorporated language from the fire community to ensure that their perspectives were incorporated. Changes from the Auto Dealers Association prohibiting cost shifting from the manufacturers to the dealers and consumers, countering arguments that this will increase costs for consumers and have pretty closely engaged with the governor's office and CDPHE since last fall to better understand their perspectives and incorporate their feedback. We do have some amendments, which I am happy to pass out early, but the high-level summary is that we're bringing three amendments today that are specifically in response to some, you know, last-er-minute engagement from our friends at CDPHE. Um, and so we've got a couple of technical changes in L8 to modify the enforcement clause. And this was at CDPHE's request, um, to reference a different framework. And that modifies the out-year cap on fees for the industry to account for these costs and some reporting deadlines. We're also bringing L9, which is additionally in response to feedback from CDPHE, as well as Tesla Motors to require registration of secondary handlers for administrative ease. And it also includes some technical changes to this framework. And then L10, which you will also see is additionally based on feedback with CDPHE. It was important that enough fee revenue was in the bank to ensure that they could hire up and train the person needed to oversee the program. So the amendment adjusts some of the fees for the first three years and also pushes back the compliance dates nine months to accommodate for that. And like I said, there are very smart people coming behind us who can answer all of your technical questions. Committee, any questions for the bill sponsors? See, none. We're going to go to the witness testimony phase. We can get Renee Larratt, Jessica Dunn, Erin Cressy, Ashley Seward, and Nick Steingart. Let me see if we have Ashley online. Ashley should be here, but Nick Steingart should be online. And Renee. We got Renee. And we got Renee. Great. If you could start us off. hit the little button in front of you a little over to where the red light is. There should be a little gray. Perfect. State your name, who you're testifying on behalf of. Floor is yours for two minutes. Thank you. My name is Jessica Dunn, and I'm a scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, testifying in support of Senate Bill 3. We have been an advocate for lowering emissions from our transportation system through electrification, and now it's time to look forward and seize the opportunity that the wave of battery retirements really present us. This means ensuring that the batteries and minerals are not wasted in our landfills, but instead continue to support our growing electrification efforts. SB3 is innovative in its approach to ensure that batteries in our hybrid and electric vehicles are reused in vehicles, repurposed in stationary storage, and eventually recycled. This bill allows for the vehicle dismantling and battery reuse market to continue operating, but creates an essential producer responsibility framework to collect those batteries that would normally fall through the cracks. In addition, the bill supports reuse and recycling markets by requiring easy-to-implement measures, such as labeling and access to battery health, information that will increase the efficiency of these businesses. This bill also addresses the important matter of ensuring the batteries are recycled responsibly. We have worked very closely with industry to set strong but practical recycling requirement standards that really prioritize mineral recovery. Senate Bill 3 established the first ever critical mineral recovery requirements here in the U.S. and can really support the growth of a U.S.-based battery recycling industry. The bill will result in more mineral recovery that can go back into our manufacturing supply chain, which comes at huge environmental and economic benefits. These minerals are a local replacement for those that are newly mined, and this results in significantly less environmental impacts to the water and air that sustain us. So I want to thank you, Representative Brown and Stewart, for leadership in supporting this bill, and please ask you to vote yes on Senate Bill 3. Thank you, Dr. Dunn. Next witness. Good evening, Chair and members of the committee. I am Aaron Kresig with Western Resource Advocates, and I lead our organization's efforts to transition our transportation sector to clean and affordable vehicles in Colorado. I'm here to speak in support of SB3 and thank Representative Brown and Representative Stewart for championing this effort. EVs are a crucial tool in our objective to meet Colorado's climate and air quality goals. But as the first EVs begin to age, we need to determine how to handle the batteries that power them. As it comes to handling retired EV batteries, we have two paths in front of us. One path leads us to a world where unwanted batteries are often unsafely stored, perhaps even disposed of in landfills, harming our communities and wasting crucial critical minerals. The second path, which Representative Brown and Stewart's bill aims to lead Colorado down, will ensure that EV batteries retired in Colorado are reused and repurposed in new electric vehicles or alternative applications like energy storage. Ultimately, it will help create a domestic battery recycling industry where the critical minerals contained within the batteries of today are the same minerals that power the EVs of tomorrow Under the guidance of the bill sponsors we have worked very hard to collaborate and compromise with industry stakeholders from the auto manufacturing battery recycling and vehicle scrappage industries The bill before you represents months of extensive industry negotiations and we are proud of the final product. For these reasons, I urge you to vote yes on SB3 as amended. Thanks again to Representative Brown and Representative Stewart for bringing this bill forward, and thank you committee members for your attention. All right. Next witness. Can you hear me? Yep. Okay. Chair Woodrow, Vice Chair Tatone, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Ashley Seward, State Policy and Government Affairs Manager at Redwood Materials, and we're testifying in support of Senate Bill 3. Redwood Materials is building a domestic battery supply chain. We are the largest lithium-ion battery recycler in North America, recovering more than 95% of critical minerals from end-of-life batteries, and we're also a leader in battery repurposing, having recently deployed the world's largest second life battery energy storage system project. We've worked on EV battery management policy across the country, including the California EPA EV Battery Advisory Group, national stakeholder groups, and we bring that expertise and experience to this conversation today. The decisions made now will shape how the industry develops in Colorado and across the country, and we believe Senate Bill 3 strikes the right balance for the management of all EV batteries. There are four key elements in this bill that we particularly believe are important. First, the bill recognizes that EV batteries are not waste. These batteries retain significant value throughout their life cycle, and the market is already responding through direct partnerships between automakers, recyclers, and repurposers. Recognizing EV batteries as valuable industrial assets rather than negative value waste streams is critical to strengthening domestic battery supply chains and supporting continued investment in battery infrastructure and energy innovation. Second, the bill appropriately prioritizes repurposing battery, repurposing before recycling through the use of the battery management hierarchy. The majority of EV batteries coming off the road today still retain meaningful usable life and creating second life opportunities for energy storage applications before they're ultimately recycled is important. Third, the bill avoids applying a traditional nonprofit producer responsibility organization model commonly used with an EPR framework onto this bill. A pulled stewardship model designed for consumer products is not the right fit for this ecosystem. And finally, when these batteries do reach end of life, they are managed responsibly through outcome-based battery recycling standards as opposed to technology mandates. And it's for these reasons that we support the bill. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Hold to questions. Mr. Steingart. Hey. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening. I am Nick Steingart with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We are a trade association of OEMs that produce nearly every new vehicle sold in the U.S., along with battery manufacturers, semiconductor makers, and others in the automotive supply chain. We are pleased to be here today in support of Cinebell 3. I do want to start by thanking the sponsors and the proponents for the tireless work to get us to a position of support on the bill today. I know it was not easy and it took months of hours long negotiations. So again, thank you to everyone involved for the thoughtfulness. I'll be short and sweet with my remarks and why we're in support of the bill. Simply put, Senate Bill 3 will help ensure that more critical minerals return to the supply chain, reducing the need for new mineral extraction. As has been said these minerals lithium cobalt nickel are important not just to automakers but will play an increasingly important role in the economy as they are vital for things like grid energy storage systems And by recycling these minerals that have already been extracted already been processed we can reduce our dependence on foreign supply chains and fortify our domestic supply chains. The last note I'll make in favor of the bill is that it creates regulatory certainty on this topic. There have been several bills introduced on this around the country in recent years. And because we had partners working in good faith and recognizing that we shared the same goals, we were able to get to the product that's before you today. So thank you again for the opportunity to testify. And again, respectfully urge the committee to support this bill. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Ms. Larrate. Thank you, chair and committee members. My name is Renee Larrate, Climate and Transportation Campaign Manager at Conservation Colorado, the state's largest environmental organization, and I'm here today to testify in support of SB3. Colorado is a national leader in electric vehicle adoption, and that leadership matters because transportation remains the largest source of GHG emissions in our state. Electrifying vehicles is essential to meeting our climate goals, but electrification alone is not enough. We also need a clear path for what happens when EVs reach their end of life, especially their batteries. As more EVs come onto Colorado roads, more EV batteries will eventually be removed from vehicles. Many of these batteries still have significant value and usable life. Yet Colorado lacks a clear policy framework to assign responsibility for managing unwanted EV batteries. Without that framework, batteries can be stored unsafely, dismantled improperly, or even end up in landfills, creating fire risks and other forms of environmental harm. This bill closes that gap by establishing a responsible EV battery stewardship. Mining materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, as you heard, is highly energy intensive and polluting, while recycling and reuse reduce the need for new mining and cut emissions across the full battery life cycle from extraction to disposal. Additionally, the Union of Concerned Scientists found that by 2050, more than half of the U.S. demand for these critical minerals can be met through EV battery recycling, strengthening a cleaner, more secure domestic supply chain, and reinforcing the need for this bill. Just as important, this bill advances equity. Mining for critical minerals can create localized environmental and social burdens on communities where materials are mined, and creating a robust circular economy will reduce these harms. EVs are a key climate solution. This bill makes them cleaner, safer, more sustainable, and by acting now, Colorado can continue leading on clean transportation, climate action, and responsible resource use. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. Members, this is our panel of witnesses. Does anyone have any questions for this panel of witnesses? All right, I don't see any questions. Thank you very much. We really appreciate you being here. Thank you so much for waiting. We will go on to the next panel. We have Wolf Cray for questions only from the Department of Public Health and Environment. We also have Ms. Rachel Setsky remotely. We have Emil Nussbaum remotely, Brandy Mo remotely, and Todd Rose remotely as well. All right Let get started with Rachel Setsky Would you tell us who you are if you representing anyone other than yourself and we give you two minutes Thank you Good evening I Rachel Setzke I the Senior Policy Advisor at EcoCycle one of the oldest nonprofit recyclers in the country 50 years ago, EcoCycle started the first curbside recycling program in Colorado, and in 2023, we proudly deployed the nation's first fully electric compost truck. And we've continued to transition the vehicles in our fleet to EVs since then. EcoCycle supports SB3 because we believe that ensuring true recycling of EV batteries is a critical piece of the circular economy. We appreciate that the bill encourages rebuilding, reuse, and repurposing prior to recycling, and that when batteries are recycled, it is imperative that they're recycled by the most environmentally friendly and efficient means possible, and that most of the materials possible are recaptured back into the supply chain, which we believe is the path that this bill is carving out. We appreciate the care that has been given to outlining the responsibilities for battery providers, repurposers, and handlers, and we've worked with the sponsors to make sure that the bill does not inadvertently create loopholes or batteries or battery parts fall on landfills or local governments to deal with. Colorado has become a national leader in producer responsibility, and we know that good producer responsibility has strong state oversight and creates systems that make recycling easy. We appreciate all of the negotiation that the sponsors have undertaken to find compromises needed for so many interested parties. In particular, we applaud the inclusion of language that directs CDPHE to report on the effectiveness of this program that will be created through this bill, which relies on individual producers rather than one stewardship organization. We advocated for small and medium format battery stewardship last year. We knew that that was one step needed to recover the valuable minerals and batteries. Please vote yes on SB3 to help us take the next step towards safety and responsibility of recovering these valuable minerals. Thank you. All right. Thanks very much. We'll next go to Brandy Mo. Thank you. Thank you. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Brandy Mo and I'm the Executive Director of Recycle Colorado. I'm here today in support of SB 26003. Recycle Colorado is a statewide nonprofit organization whose mission is to advance infrastructure and and markets, and state and local policies that increase waste diversion and support Colorado's circular economy. Our vision is a Colorado where materials are viewed as resources, not waste, and where we build systems that protect communities, conserve resources, and create long-term economic and environmental benefits. Throughout the stakeholder process, this bill has continue to evolve through collaboration and thoughtful discussion, and we appreciate the work that has gone into shaping the current version of this legislation. While the bill looks a little different than when it was first introduced, we believe it still reflects the important principles around responsible end-of-life management, safety, material recovery, and long-term planning for electric vehicle batteries. As EV adoption continues to grow, Colorado has an opportunity to be proactive in addressing the infrastructure and management needs associated with these batteries before larger challenges emerge. This bill aligns with Recycle Colorado's values because it supports responsible materials management, encourages cross-savisement, collaboration and helps move Colorado toward a stronger circular economy. So on behalf of Recycle Colorado, I respectfully ask for you to support SB 26003. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Ms. Moe. I will now go to Mr. Rouse. Hello, committee members. My name is Todd Rouse, and I am the Environmental Policy Manager for General Motors. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of Senate Bill 3. To give some background, since August 2025, a coalition of members in the battery lifecycle supply chain have been working together on model state bill language to ensure electric vehicle propulsion batteries are responsibly managed and ultimately recycled at the end of their useful life. This coalition consists of representatives from auto manufacturers, auto dismantlers, battery recyclers, and trade associations. Working together, our coalition has developed a program modeled after a similar battery collection system implemented in Canada, which resulted in draft bill language for this unique industry at a time when ensuring a favorable environment for both electric vehicle sales and the development of a healthy battery recycling industry in the U.S. and North America is most important. Upon learning of Senate Bill 3 from Senate sponsors Cutter and Wallace, the coalition presented our ideas to Western resource advocates in the Union of Concerned Scientists, and to their credit, they decided to work with us in the development of the bill you see today. We've spent countless hours together over the past many months working through these concepts with an eye toward a fiscally responsible and functionally achievable bill. Both sides, our supply chain coalition and WRA UCS negotiated in good faith and the resulting SB3 is a reflection of that work. Of course, the real win here is that the bill provides a path and the resources to ensure batteries reach recyclers and not landfills. As a company, General Motors is committed to ensuring propulsion batteries are recycled at the end of their useful life and supporting the development of a domestic battery circular economy, which is crucial for our future. For these reasons, GM supports Senate Bill 3. All right. Thank you, Mr. Rouse. And Mr. Craig, stand by for questions. And thanks for wearing a suit at 8 o'clock. Committee, any questions for this panel of witnesses? All right. I don't see any questions. We really appreciate you hanging with us. Thank you very much. Are there any other people in the audience or online who want to testify on Senate Bill 3? Seeing none witness testimony phase is closed. Amendment phase. Bill sponsors. Come back. Come on up. I'm sorry. What? Oh, yeah. Keep it together. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move L-8 to Senate Bill 3. Second by Representative Garcia. Tell us about L-008. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. LA makes some technical changes to modify the enforcement clause that CDPHE request to reference a different framework modifies the out cap on fees for the industry to account for those costs modifies some reporting deadlines and some other technical changes at the request of CDPHE Committee, any questions on L-008? Any objection to L-008? Seeing none, L-008 is passed. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-9 to Senate Bill 3. Second by Madam Vice Chair. Who wants to tell us about L9? I will. Representative Stewart. L9 is also in response to CDPHE feedback as well as Tesla Motors. It requires registration of secondary handlers for administrative ease, and it includes some technical changes as well to account for this framework. Okay. Committee, any questions on L009? Any objection to L009? Seeing none, L-009 is passed. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-10 to Senate Bill 3. Second. Second by Madam Vice Chair. Representative Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. L-010 results from conversations from CDPHE. It was important enough that we ensure that they could hire and train the person that they need to oversee this framework and this amendment adjusts the initiation fees for the first three years to deal with that particular issue. So we ask for an aye vote on L010. Representative Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Brown, just to be clear, these are the fees for the program for the recycling of the batteries, or who's paying the fee? Representative Brown. Yeah, thank you. The fees are being paid by, I just want to make sure I don't say something wrong here. My understanding is that the fees are being paid by the actual manufacturers of the EVs and that they will register with the state and beginning to pay the fee. So it's a small fee, as you can tell by the amount of money that's being raised. Representative Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I mean, it's like $9,900, but that would just be annually for a company like GM or Tesla. That's right. So small companies like that. Yeah. Representative Brown. Thank you. Appreciate the dry humor, Representative Soper. Any other questions on L010? Seeing none, any objection to L010? Seeing none, L010 has passed. Bill sponsors any further amendments. Committee, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up, Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Electric vehicles really are a cornerstone of a green economy and reducing carbon emissions and have really, really wide adoption in Colorado, but their long-term sustainability really depends on how we handle the full life cycle of their components and especially the critical minerals in their batteries. So by leading on this first-in-the-nation policy here in Colorado, we are demonstrating environmental stewardship, economic innovation, and industry collaboration can go hand-in-hand, and we're incredibly grateful to all of the folks who weighed in on this process throughout the last year. Representative Brown. Thank you Mr Chair and I want to thank my co sponsor for all of her work on this We are the battery duo after two different battery bills in the last two years I think one of the cornerstones of our last battery bill was this idea that, you know, these batteries can be dangerous if they end up in the waste streams. And so making sure that they're appropriately dealt with and recycled is a really important part of making sure that our workers are safe and that they're not creating some hazard in the waste stream. So this is also a cornerstone of this particular bill. It's about reducing safety risks by setting expectations for the proper handling and storage. It also is about requiring the recovery of these critical minerals like lithium and cobalt and nickel that strengthen our domestic supply chains. I can remember from the moment that I showed up and we had been talking about sort of EV technologies, environmental technologies, these critical minerals are not easy to get. And in many places, sort of mining operations may not be up to the sort of labor standards that we would certainly appreciate here in the United States. And so making sure that the minerals that we have, that we are recycling them and reusing batteries when we can and recycling the batteries when they've hit the end of their life, is critical to make sure that we are being good stewards of this very finite resource that are so critical to this particular industry. So I think there's a couple of really important parts of this, not only being first in the nation, but also just the environmental impacts in different ways. So we'd ask for an aye vote and appreciate your attention today. Representative Silver. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sponsors. Oddly, this is one bill that I've had a number of constituents reach out to me on. You don't normally have that as the case unless it's, in my opinion, a much more big ticket bill. I mean, you probably think this is a big ticket bill. But I have had constituents sort of on both sides of the equation, from those who are more the environmentalists within Palisade and Paonia, who are very much driven by the good stewardship side, to those who represent the opposite side of the political equation, who actually see this as the EVs more paying their own way, and that finally a recognition of the fact that batteries do fill up the landfills. They're dangerous. They pass on the cost to the rest of us, and it's the taxpayers at the end of the day who are having to foot the bill. So this actually shifts some of those costs away from the taxpayers. So for the reasons that I've heard now from both the left and the right within my district, there will be a yes vote. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just would like to make sure that you have some battery jokes to accelerate the humor and come up with some good positive vibes and then bring home the bill at the end to the Appropriations Committee. Well done on a very charged subject. That's right. I move Senate Bill 3. Well, no, she'll do the motion. Yes, Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 3 is amended to the Committee on Appropriations with a very favorable, positive recommendation. Second. Second by Madam Vice Chair. Please poll the committee Representatives Brooks No Macho Yes Garcia Yes. Gonzalez. Yes. Artsuk. Yes. Marshall. Yes. Soper. Yes. Stewart. Yes. Zokai. Yes. Titone. Positively yes. Mr. Chair. Yes. That passes 10 to 1. Final bill of the night. Representative Brown, don't go far. Oh. So many presents. I should have done this. Here, I'll do this. It's fine. You start your amendments. You start your stuff. Remarks? Yeah, I'll do this. Yep. All right, final bill of the evening. Senate Bill 155, Madam Speaker. Nice to see you too, Mr. Chair. Hello, committee. Great to be here with all of you. And very delighted to be here with Representative Brown talking about the importance of property insurance and what the state can do to help make property insurance more affordable. I want to give a special shout out to our friends in the Division of Insurance, Commissioner Conway, Deb Judy, and Matt Voss, and the many stakeholders that have been at the table, not just this year, not last year, but for many years now, to try and address the skyrocketing prices that we see in property insurance. Over the last several years, we have passed several bills to try and address this issue. In 2023, we created the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements, the Fair Plan, to ensure that the state had an employer of last resort in case homeowners were refused coverage from the private market. In 24, we directed DOI to conduct a study of HOA property and casualty insurance. That helped inform what we might be able to do in that market. And last year, we did try a version of this bill to address the rising property rates. You all may remember that as House Bill 1302. However, we continue to hear loud and clear from constituents across the state that property and casualty insurance is simply too expensive. Last year, DOI collected data from homeowners insurance carriers to understand what exactly is making premiums so darn expensive. And it is clear that insurers are spreading the cost of hail risk around the state. In my home county, for example, Summit County, 35.6% of premiums are from hail, and only 7.9% of premiums are due to wildfire on average. This is remarkable because hail is not the main issue for us in our area. It's wildfire. In the front range urban county of, say, Denver, 50.9% of premiums are from hail, 1% from wildfire. Colorado is second behind Texas in terms of hail claims and hail events, and hail events have caused over $5 billion in insured losses in the last decade. In short, no matter where you live, the WUI, the suburban areas, urban areas, eastern plain, means your premiums are affected by hail. What will our bill do? The bill that we are bringing forward today is the result of a great deal of work during the interim. And bringing everyone together, we have modified the approach from last year's bill. This bill creates the Strength in Colorado Homes Enterprise, which will provide grants directly to homeowners who install hardened, hail-resistant roofs. In low-hail-risk areas of the state, a hardened roof can save up to $400. In high hail risk areas, having a hardened roof could save up to $1,900. The enterprise will be run by a seven-person board who will consider applications. The board will be undertaking several activities that directly benefit insurers. The board will evaluate market data to identify where to target grants, which will help maximize reductions in claim losses. The board will help evaluate and provide information to insurers regarding hail-resistant standards and certification for insurers to ensure that those standards are met. The grant program is funded by a 0.5% fee on insurers through extensive stakeholding with the insurance companies. We have discussed and have been ensured that the fee will not be surcharged to policyholders. This bill also creates a study regarding insurance risk and insurance availability, particularly in the high wildfire areas of the state. I deeply appreciate you hearing round two of our property insurance reduction efforts and encourage a yes vote on Senate Bill 155. Thank you. Thank you. Committee, any questions for the bill sponsors? I have a quick question. Is there anything in the bill, and I just haven't had a chance to dive as fully deep as I need to, I admit that. Is there anything in the bill that deals with HOA requirements and restrictions on the type of roofs that people can put on in their communities? Sometimes you'll have someone who wants to repair or replace their roof due to hill damage, and then they find out that the HOA is very particular in terms of what materials they can use. Has that come up in conversation? Representative Brown. That's a good question. We will have some folks from the Division of Insurance following behind us. I will say that particular issues like that are very important to me. Representative Titone and I actually ran a bill back in 2024 to make sure that HOA requirements couldn't get in the way of you hardening your home from wildfire. So to the extent to which this isn't covered in this particular bill, it's certainly something that I'm very interested in and want to make sure that folks have the ability and the freedom, if you will, to put the kinds of hardened roofs on their homes that they need to. Great. Thank you. Committee, any questions? Seeing none, we're going to go to the witness testimony phase. We have a number of people signed up, which is meaningless. We have 14 people. Well, I mean, a number. Sorry. It's always. Okay, so did you have any preferences on witness lists? I did not receive one. The hour is late. Can I just wing it? All right, great. Thanks. if we could go with Natalie Menton who should be remote Dan Jablin Danny Furman I sorry Daniel Furman Mr. Javelin, if you could start us off. Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members. Good evening. My name is Dan Giblan. I'm testifying on behalf of the Rocky Mountain Insurance Association. We represent about 85% of the companies that write homeowners insurance in the insurance market. We very much appreciate Speaker McCluskey, Brett Brown, Senator Mullica, and Commissioner Conway's engagement in this robust stakeholder process and working with us on this important bill to help reduce risk for Colorado's number one homeowners insurance cost driver, hail damage. Colorado is ranked second in the nation for hail insurance claims, and on average, more than 60% of homeowners' premiums are attributed to hail risk. Cinebell 155 represents our shared goal of investing in hail mitigation and getting more fortified roofs in place at scale to ultimately reduce risks to lower insurance premiums and prevent roofing fraud. This bill is based on a successful IBHS fortified mitigation grant programs in place like in Alabama, where they have the crisis on the coast, has been transformed into a stable, affordable insurance market by doing scalable roofing mitigation supported by state grant programs. This is an important step forward for the insurance solutions, so we stop looking at insurance solutions and we start supporting risk-based solutions. That's the long-term answer to making our homes safer and more insurable. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. Mr. Fuhrman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Daniel Fuhrman. I'm here on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, whose members provide insurance coverage to homeowners in every community across Colorado. APCIA strongly supports efforts that help homeowners reduce the risk of hail damage. It is the single largest driver of homeowners insurance costs in Colorado. As Mr. Jablan just indicated, Colorado ranks second in the nation for hail insurance claims, with more than half of premiums driven by hail-related losses, thus making risk mitigation essential to any affordability strategy. By investing in proven science-based mitigation strategies, including fortified roofing standards that are developed through extensive testing, this bill, Senate Bill 155, recognizes that stronger homes mean fewer claims, less damage, and more stable insurance markets over time. We've actually seen this approach work elsewhere. States that have made sustained investments in home hardening and roof mitigation have seen losses decline and markets stabilize, which has improved long-term availability and affordability for consumers. We, APCIA, are supportive of all the amendments that have been adopted and will be adopted to this bill. We appreciate the willingness of the sponsors and Commissioner Conway to work with the insurance industry to improve the bill These amendments help ensure the program is appropriately scoped it well and it focused on meaningful risk reduction while ensuring the program is implemented in a way that is efficient, workable for the insurance industry, and aligned with existing regulatory frameworks. Ultimately, the goal is straightforward. We need to reduce hail losses, strengthen homes, and keep homeowners insurance available and affordable for Colorado residents over the long period of time. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Please hold for questions. We'll go online to Natalie Menton. Ms. Menton, nice to see you. The floor is yours for two minutes. Thank you, Natalie Menton, representing myself. This bill is supposed to have a fee. I'm sorry. A fee is supposed to have a direct relationship to the service that the payer receives. And this bill creates a government enterprise, creating a 5% surcharge on multi-parallel, which is known as homeowners and other insurance premiums. The fiscal note is estimating $30 million in estimated fee revenue in the first year. And my research indicates there may be approximately 1.6 million insured properties in Colorado. I suspect that's low. But that works out to with the $30 million, 1.6 million insured properties. That's basically $16 per insured property. So back to a direct benefit. What is the homeowner supposed to get for $16 out of this? I mean, that probably doesn't even buy a garden hose these days or a quarter bundle of fire resistant shingles. Maybe it'll be just a government study that we're getting out of this. So this fee tactic is to me with the grants that are going out is nothing more and nothing less, whichever you'd like put it, than a lottery ticket. And the court has said that the fee must be reasonably related to the service provided. So here we've got a million plus homeowners paying into this because the fee is going to be passed on, OK, paying into a statewide pool where there's no guarantee of this direct proportional or proportional benefit. And this resembles a tax policy, not a fee. And while the bill says, again, the insurers cannot pass the costs on to the policyholders, I assume that that is how it's going to work. Along with the additional employees, the insurance company will have to hire for the reporting, it appears, in this bill. So that's just going to create higher, where are the savings here? This is another fee. This should really be going to the ballot because it's a tax policy, not a fee. Thank you. Thank you. Committee, any questions for this panel? Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So a couple questions to multiple witnesses. So to Mr. Giblon and Mr. Furman, are you all in full support of this bill with the amendments that will be offered? Mr. Giblon. Yes, Mr. Chair, Mr. Marsh, thank you for that question. We are, as I said, we are full support of the amendments. We are full support of the intent of the bill. I think also I would say we are hopeful This isn't a fee And we are the ones funding the bill So we're also in a hopeful position That this works as well here as it does in Alabama So we do support All the work and the concepts In this piece of legislation Follow Representative Marshall Mr. Furman Thank you Mr Chairman I think we in a similar position We strongly support the efforts that underscore the program that being created in this bill We've seen from other states like Alabama where a similar program has been implemented where we have seen hail losses decline and over a period of time that should yield to lower claims and therefore lower premiums. We are in an amend position technically right now. With the amendments, our organization will be convening a meeting in the next day or so to take a revised position. But we are very supportive of the program that's in this bill. Representative Marshall. So as the customer paying the fee for the service, you think you're getting value back for what you're paying? Mr. Zippland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Marshall. It has shown in other states that we do get value back. It's worked in Alabama, and for those that have been on the coast, that's a tough place, and the fortified roofs have proven to help drive down premiums. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you for your time and sticking around this evening. We'll go to our support panels, Jeffrey Woodruff, Jody Hartman-Ball, Commissioner Hartman-Ball. Nice to see you. And Amy Bach. I can also get Lisa Hughes, who should be signed up remotely. Good evening. Oh, go ahead. Yeah, just hang on. We'll call on you in just a minute. Mr. Woodruff, if you could unmute yourself. The floor is yours for two minutes. Good evening, Chair Woodrow and committee members. I'm Pitkin County Commissioner Jeffrey Woodruff. I previously served for two years on the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code Board as a licensed architect appointed by the Department of Public Safety. I'm speaking today on behalf of Pitkin County in strong support of Senate Bill 155. Pitkin County is also a member of Colorado Communities for Climate Action, CC4CA, and counties and commissioners acting together, CCAT, who are also in support. And thank you to my esteemed colleague from Larimer County, Commissioner Jody Shattuck-McNally. You've heard from the speaker that hail risk is driving between 26% and 54% of the insurance premium increases Coloradans are facing. That means that even places like the Roaring Fork Valley, my constituents and I are paying higher premiums for a threat that is defined by FEMA as very low in my region. The problem needs a statewide solution, and the bill before you is an excellent start. The enterprise will provide funding for homeowners to install resilient roofs, and we appreciate the funding comes from a fee on insurance providers, not policyholders who are already bearing the brunt of increased premiums statewide. The Wildfire Code Board was limited. We could only require Class A roofs for wildfire resiliency. This bill takes a much-needed step because we know installing hail-fortified roofs, whether Class 4 or IBHS-fortified roofs, will result in reduced premiums. And we appreciate that the bill requires insurance companies to report back on how these savings are passed on to consumers. While this bill only funds roofs for hail resistance, it also funds a study to assess wildfire and reinsurance risk. Just as important, the bill was amended by the Senate to ensure the study's results are back with the legislature and the public. And as your partners, we commit to working with you to ensure that the study leads to meaningful solutions for our Valley and statewide. Thank you for your time this evening, and thank you to the bill's sponsors, Speaker McCluskey and Rep. Brown, and the division for their persistence in bringing workable solutions to this challenge we face as a state. I ask for your support in this bill before you as amended. Thank you, Ms. Bach.
Thank you so much to the committee for hearing my testimony today. I am representing a national nonprofit organization called United Policyholders. We're in our 35th year of service. We have had the privilege of supporting Colorado residents after wildfires in Colorado since 2010 and working closely with the department ever since the property insurance market started to become challenging for homeowners. And we strongly support this measure. It will reduce losses and insurance claims related to hail damage from severe weather events, help restore affordable home insurance options in Colorado. And as a nonprofit that's been helping Colorado residents be disaster prepared despite unprecedented adverse conditions in the marketplace, we know how important it is that we build out programs that will help households invest time and money into risk reduction home improvements and be appropriately rewarded by insurers for their efforts. A major obstacle to most households is the cost of fortifying or replacing their roofs. This bill creates a mechanism for helping them overcome that obstacle. It's appropriate and wise that the bill engages insurers. They have a financial interest in improving roof resilience. So having them contribute to facilitating those improvements is appropriate and important. And that's why you've got this support from the industry, which is incredibly important. And I commend the commissioner and his team for working with the industry to bring them to this position. We also support the grant screening priorities outlined in the bill. It makes sense to prioritize grants to primary homes and homes in regions that have strong building codes to create that additional incentive that we need, especially given how much insurers value jurisdictions that adopt Hale Resilient Building Codes. Finally, we support the roofer training component, which will help accomplish the bill's objective of increasing the number of hail-resistant roofs in the state of Colorado. My organization has seen the progress that the Fortified Roof Programs have made in improving marketplace options for Alabama homeowners, Florida homeowners, and Louisiana homeowners. This is a win-win, and we urge your aye vote on SB 155. Thank you for your time and attention.
Thank you, committee. Any questions for the witnesses? Seeing none, thank you for your time this evening. If we can go to our next panel, Brian Bernier, Kinsey Hastett, Jocelyn Fankhauser, and Rachel Setzke. Mr Bernier Yes Please kick us off two minutes
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to members of the committee. My name is Brian Bernier. I am the CEO of the Professional Independent Insurance Agency of Colorado. We represent over 350 independent agents throughout the state of Colorado. I also have served as the chair of the board of the Fair Plan for the first two years of its inception. I'm no longer the chair as of January 1st. Over the last four and a half, five years, any consumer in the state of Colorado that has reached out to the Department of Insurance or to the governor's office has been rerouted to my organization and me personally. I've spoke to almost 400 homeowners, HOAs, commercial property owners, et cetera. We've tried to help them out. We've attended town hall meetings with elected officials, the DOI throughout the whole state, from Pueblo to Summit County, all the way down to Alamosa and whatnot. So I think this gives me a pretty unique perspective on the challenges that homeowners face around affordability and availability here in the state of Colorado. I've also had the unique opportunity to go visit the IBHS facility in South Carolina to see that the work that they do around hardening of roofs around hail prevention it was a couple day trip and you get to see the work that they've done in the alum and this build will point directly to that I do feel that the most critical component to us getting out of the some of the availability and affordability issues we have is mitigation and hardening of properties. This bill is a huge step forward in that process to get availability for folks to get a fortified roof. There are a lot of components to a fortified roof. It's not just just the shingles, it's the installation, it's the certification of the roofer. There's a whole bunch of components inside of a fortified roof and again I've seen firsthand what a lot of those components are. So we are in full support of this bill. We would like to thank the bill sponsors and the Department of Insurance for all their work on this bill. Thank you for your time tonight.
Thank you. Please hold for questions. Ms. Hasted.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Kinsey Hasted, and I'm the Director of State and Local Policy for Enterprise Community Partners. Enterprise is one of the nation's leading affordable housing entities, increasing affordable housing and advancing housing stability through capital, programs, and policy work at all levels of government. I'm here today to share Enterprise's strong support for Senate Bill 155 and to thank Speaker McCluskey, Representative Brown, and the Division of Insurance for their leadership on this really important multi-year effort. Enterprise's advocacy most often focuses on affordable rental homes. However, we recognize that increasing property insurance costs, shrinking coverage, and weather and natural disaster risks threaten the stability not only of affordable multifamily housing, but also homeowners and the insurance market writ large. In an extensive national report on property insurance challenges that was released in February, Enterprise specifically named incentivizing investments in resilience that lower insurance costs as a meaningful intervention. Senate Bill 155, Strengthen Colorado Homes Enterprise, will provide grants to homeowners installing roofs resilient to extreme weather events, particularly hail. As you've heard, a similar program in Alabama that we have followed has proven very effective as property owners taking steps to protect their homes and prevent insurance claims know that they receive a financial benefit for doing so Enterprise looks forward to Colorado's program similarly getting off the ground and working well, and we hope that it paves the way for future similar incentives not only for homeowners, but also for multifamily properties that house renters, particularly affordable properties strained by insurance and other cost challenges. And in the meantime, we would urge the division to consider prioritizing low to moderate income homeowners for grants in their rulemaking. We have seen and have no issues with the amendments you will consider tonight, and so I appreciate your consideration and Enterprise urges your yes vote on Senate Bill 155. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the
witnesses? Thank you for your time this evening. Commissioner Conway, if you could come on down. Okay, take it away.
Thank you, Chairman Woodrow and committee members for the opportunity to testify tonight. My name is Michael Conway and I'm the Commissioner of Insurance. I'm here to testify in strong support of Senate Bill 155. The Strength in Colorado Homes Enterprise will help make insurance more affordable by helping harden homes against the most expensive peril that hits Colorado, hail. While wildfire gets a ton of attention, insurers pay more for hail damage than any other peril in Colorado. As a result, hail has the largest impact on homeowners insurance premiums for Coloradans, regardless of whether they live in hail-prone areas. That is why this bill takes that risk on. Providing these grants will help stabilize the market and reduce the claims insurers pay. That will improve insurers' bottom line and insurance affordability statewide, as insurers pay fewer claims in the areas hit hardest by hail. The Strengthened Homes Enterprise will also evaluate the market to identify areas to target for grants, and it will establish contractor standards for those who participate in the program, which will directly benefit insurers by reducing the claims that they pay. In addition to the insurer benefits, providing grants to help people fortify their roofs against hail will create long-term savings for homeowners by helping them qualify for insurance discounts, leading to substantial savings for Coloradans. But this bill is not just about hail. Wildfire is also a challenge in areas of the state, and we want to find long-term solutions for the affordability and availability challenges that wildfire causes. We remain committed to addressing this challenge, and this bill helps us do that. The enterprise will perform a study on how to develop a high-risk program that will help insurers reduce their risk and increase market share in those pockets of the state that are most impacted by wildfire. There is no silver bullet to fix the challenges in our homeowners market, but this bill will be the cornerstone to addressing our affordability and availability challenges. Please vote yes on this very important bill, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Any questions for Commissioner Conway?
Come on. This happened in the Senate, too. A testament to the thoroughness of your presentation, sir.
Okay. Seeing no questions, thank you for your time this evening. Last call for witnesses on 155. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Amendment phase. Bill sponsors.
So many. Should we just go in order? Okay. Madam Vice Chair if we can move I move amendment L012 Anyone Second by Representative Garcia
Who would like to go?
Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, as you will note, this changes the requirement that 90% of revenue goes to grant programs to 85% and removes the 3% cap on non-grant fund uses. This change ensures that there are sufficient funds for administration of the program for workforce training grants, which you heard were critically important, and for the wildfire risk study. I ask for an aye vote.
Any questions on L012? Committee, any objections to L012? Seeing none, L012 has passed.
Madam Vice Chair. I move amendment L013. Second by Representative Camacho.
Representative Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. L013 makes changes to the legislative declaration to further explain the benefits and services provided by the enterprise to insurers. It also includes a technical clarification to the definition of insurer as requested by insurer or stakeholders. We ask for an aye vote.
Committee, any questions on L013? Any objection to L013? Seeing none, L013 is passed. Madam Vice Chair.
I move amendment L014. Second by Representative Camacho.
Representative, Madam. Whatever. Speaker. Madam Speaker. Thank you. This bill goes on to clarify and explain the benefits and the services provided by the enterprise to insurers. I ask for an aye vote.
Committee, any questions on L014? Seeing none, is there any objection to L014? Seeing none, L014 has passed.
I move amendment L015. Second. Second by Representative Camacho, Representative Brown.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment changes things a little bit by removing the wildfire insurance study from the division and makes the study one of the board's responsibilities, and we ask for an aye vote on that.
Committee, any questions on L015? Seeing none. Any objection to L015? Seeing none, L015 has passed.
Madam Vice Chair. I move amendment L016. Second. Second by Representative Camacho. Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. L016 is the technical cleanup, as you will note, since we just passed L015.
Committee, any questions on L016? Seeing none, any objection to L016? Seeing none, L016 is passed. Any further amendments bill sponsors? Seeing none. Committee, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up.
Representative Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this late hour, or thank you for being here and paying attention at this late hour. I just want to say I think many of you know that my district was affected by the Marshall Fire a number of years ago. and I think one of the things that my community learned from the Marshall Fire was just how important it is to have a resilient community. Resilient communities make it much less likely that we have losses when we have major events like wildfires, but that also applies to hail. So it's about, you know, when you're talking about wildfires, it's about defensible space, and it's about hardy board siding or non-flammable siding. It's about non-flammable siding. Fences, when you're talking about hail, it's about roofs. And, you know, the Marshall Fire had about $2 billion in losses. A single hailstorm can cause about a similar amount of damage because everybody in a community needs a new roof. But if we fortify our roofs and we have a more resilient community, then people are much less likely to need a new roof when there is a major hailstorm. So that's what really the principle here is. It's about resilient communities that are lower risk for large insurance claims. That saves people money. It saves insurers money, and it stabilizes our insurance market, and that's really what this bill is all about. So we would ask for an aye vote to help stabilize our insurance premiums in Colorado and save people money on their homeowners insurance.
Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Excellent closing statements. Representative Brown, I just want to give a special shout out to the witnesses this evening, people who have been working with us now for years to try and address the property insurance affordability crisis for so many property owners in the state. So thanks to all of them. Please vote yes.
Maybe any closing comments? Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just say I appreciate this work on this part. We did a lot with wildfire stuff last year, which is being reproduced in a lot of other states now. But the hail is an important issue. When I first moved to Colorado and I bought my condo it was only a year later that we had a big hail storm and we had to replace all of our rooms And back then the insurance wasn as much as it is now But I know that in that community that our policy was about a year when I got there And I know that from what they were telling me recently, it's $180,000 for that policy now. And the deductible when I left was 2% of the value of the whole community, which was over $700,000. So this is a huge issue. We really dodged that other hailstorm in Golden, but my car didn't. And so I know how hail is really a factor, and it's the most destructive thing, and I really look forward to seeing this help to reduce the rates.
Any other closing comments? Seeing none, Madam Vice Chair, proper motion routes 155 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations.
I move Senate Bill 155 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. Second. Second by Representative García.
You've had quite a night, Representative Camacho. Please poll the committee. Representatives Brooks.
No. Camacho. Yes. Garcia. Yes. Gonzalez. Oh. Excuse. Hartsuk. No. Marshall. Yes. Soper. No. Stewart. Yes. Zokar, yes. Tatum. Yes.
Mr. Chair. Yes, that passes 7-3 with one excused. Have fun and approves. Thank you. You got it inside track there. Thank you, committee. Okay, committee, pay attention to your calendars. We will be meeting again probably on Saturday. Until then, we stand adjourned. Thank you.