March 12, 2026 · 11,714 words · 19 speakers · 144 segments
Mr. Schaffler, please call the roll.
Senators, Amabile, Baisley, Ball, Ball. Excuse. Benavidez, Bridges, Bright, Carson. Catlin. Cutter. Danielson. Doherty.
Here.
Exum. Frizzell. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. Excuse. Hendrickson. Judah. Kip. Kirkmeyer. Colker. Lindstedt. Liston. Marchman. Mullica. Felton B. Felton B. Felton R. Rich, Roberts, Rodriguez, Simpson, Snyder, Sullivan, Wallace, Weissman, Zamora Wilson, Ball. Gonzalez.
Mr. President.
Let's do this.
The morning roll call is 35 present, zero absence, zero excuse. We have a quorum. Senator Pelton R. Would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Would everybody in the chamber and the gallery please rise and join us in the pledge.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, one of God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Approval of the journal, Senator Judah.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate Journal of March 11, 2026 be approved as corrected by the Secretary.
You've heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Polls no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Senate Services. Correctly printed, Senate Bill 137 and 138, Senate Joint Resolution 17. Correctly re-engrossed, Senate Bill 47, 92, and 109. Correctly revised, House Bill 1001. Correctly re-revised, House Bill 1040. Correctly enrolled, Senate Bill 134 and 64. Senate Joint Resolution 4 and 11. Committee reports.
Mr. President, the Committee on Health and Human Services has had entered into consideration and had a hearing on the following appointments and recommends that the appointments be placed in the consent calendar and confirm. Members of the Medical Services Board for terms expiring July 1, 2029, Barry Martin of Denver, Colorado, to serve as a representative of the 1st Congressional District, reappointed. Committee on Health and Human Services, after consideration on the merits, the Committee recommends the following. House Bill 1042 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that it be placed on the consent calendar Committee on Education after consideration on the merits the committee recommends the following Senate bill 125 be amended and so amended be referred to the committee on appropriations with favorable recommendation. Senate bill 126 be amended as follows and as amended be referred to the committee of the whole with favor left recommendation and with a recommendation that to be placed on the consent calendar. Committee on transportation and energy after consideration on the merits of the committee. Recommends the following Senate Bill 2 be amended as follows and as so amended be referred to the committee on appropriations with favorable recommendation. Mr. President, the committee on transportation and energy has had entered consideration and had a hearing on the following appointments and recommends that the appointments be placed in the consent calendar and confirmed. Members of the community access enterprise effective September 29, 2025 for terms expiring September 28, 2029. Paul Boney of Steamboat Springs, Colorado does serve as a representative of a business or organization that supports electric alternatives to motor vehicles reappointed. Laura Getz of Pueblo, Colorado to serve as a representative of the public reappointed. Mr. President, the Committee on Transportation and Energy has entered into consideration and had a hearing on the following appointments and recommends that the appointments be placed in the consent calendar and confirmed. Members of the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission, after completion of their first term for a second term, expiring July 1, 2030, Michael Cross of Arvada, Colorado, to serve as a member with substantial experience in the oil and gas industry reappointed. Brett Ackerman of Colorado Springs, Colorado, to serve as a member with formal training or substantial experience in environmental protection, wildlife protection, or reclamation. reappointed. Mr. President, the Committee on Transportation and Energy has had her consideration and had a hearing on the following appointments and recommends that the appointments be placed in the consent calendar and confirmed. Member of the Orphaned Wells Mitigation Enterprise Board, effective September 2nd for 2025 for term expiring September 1st, 2028. Christopher Simmons of Denver, Colorado, to serve as an individual with formal training or substantial experience in land reclamation projects, reappointed. Committee on Judiciary after consideration on the merits, the Committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 97 be postponed indefinitely.
Delivery to the governor. To the governor for signature on Wednesday, March 11, 2026 at 3.42 p.m. Senate Joint Resolution 1. Majority Leader Rodriguez.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege from Peltonia.
The motion is proceeded out of order for moments of personal privilege from Peltonia. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Wow. The ayes have it. That motion is adopted. The good senator from the Eastern Plains, Peltonia.
Thank you, Mr. President. Everyone, we have a guest in the House today, Miss Rodeo Colorado, Lindsay Fancher Cole from... Come on down. Yeah. she's from loveland she's the 2026 colorado rodeo queen she goes around the state promoting agriculture at the different rodeos and different events she also travels the country representing colorado she seems to be a lawyer which i'm trying to talk her out of that she also thinks she might want to do something in politics i'm really trying to talk about that but uh And then at the end of the year, she will run for Miss Rodeo USA. So welcome her. Have a chance to talk to her. She's a very bright young lady. Thank you, Mr. President.
You're welcome. Welcome to the Senate. And when you run for Senate District 35, you are more than welcome to come down to the well.
Senator Pelton B Thank you Mr President I like to ask for a moment of personal prejudice Granted Thank you Mr President Members, today we have folks from the Independent Electrical Contractors Rocky Mountain Chapter Emerging Leaders Program. And what it is is it is a leadership training program that aims to develop leadership skills and focus on aspirations to expand their leadership role within their company. and at the industry at large. So thank you for being here. I'm a master electrician myself. I am one of the 92% of the electricians that are not labor unions. So I appreciate you guys being here today, and let's give them a round of applause. Welcome, welcome to the Senate.
Third reading of bills. Consent calendar.
Mr. Schaffler
Mr. Majority Leader
Third reader of the bill is consent calendar Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of the bill in the consent calendar Senate Bill 77 by Senator Judah and Representative Gilchrist concerning epilepsy-related mortality awareness Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of the bill on third reading of the bill's final passage of the calendar, which is Senate Bill 77. Any discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the motion is the passage of the bill on the third reading of the bill's consent calendar. Are there any no votes? Senator Baisley.
Good morning, Mr. President. Yes, I ask to be counted as a no vote on Senate Bill 26-077.
Senator Bazley will be counted as a no vote on Senate Bill 77. Senator Zamora Wilson.
Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to be counted as a no vote for Senate Bill 26077.
Senator Zamora Wilson will be counted as a no vote for Senate Bill 77. Seeing no further no votes on the consent calendar with a vote of. 33 ayes, 2 no, 0 absentee excuse. Senate Bill 77 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators. Gonzalez, Kip, Cutter, Amabile, Frizzell, Wallace, Doherty, Danielson, Kirkmeyer, Benavidez, Roberts, Snyder, Carson, Weisman, Mr. Majority Leader, Bright, Exum, Marchman, Henrickson. Mullica. Mr. Minority Leader. Sullivan. Ball. Colker. Don't see any other. Lindstedt. Please add the president. Third reading of bills. Final passage.
Mr. Schaffler, please do the title of House Bill 1001. House Bill 1001 by Representative Basnicker and Mabry and Senators Exeman Gonzalez concerning the promotion of residential developments on qualifying properties Senadora Gonzalez
Thank you, Mr. President, colleagues. It is an honor and a joy to move House Bill 261001 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote. Further discussion. Senator Kirkmeyer.
Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning. Good morning. members I rise in opposition to this bill 10,000 or 1001 for numerous reasons I don't know how many of you gandered or took a look through the legislative declaration but I did and it talks about you know that population growth has outpaced housing development yep that's true It talks about how we're trying to expedite the land use process and make it quicker so we can get more development done. But this bill doesn't necessarily do that. Just because you eliminate the public hearing process doesn't mean that we're expediting the land use process. It just means that you're taking away the voice of the people who are the most impacted. It talks about how government grows, and it's a challenge of providing affordable housing to residents. So then why not partner with local governments instead of preempt them? Why not partner with local governments? Why continue to preempt? It goes on to say even on page 5, Colorado urgently needs more housing. No one's arguing with anyone on that. But this legislative declaration would lead us to believe that maybe local governments aren't trying to do everything in their power to increase housing when they are. So why not partner with them? instead of preempt local land use authority, just so you can take away a public hearing process. Local zoning regulations often prevent housing. That's not accurate. That's just not accurate. It says it's going to streamline the construction of affordable housing. So does that mean they're not going to comply with all the objective standards? that you put in here. It talks about a situation in Virginia, because you know that's close to Colorado, how demonstrating that the public participation in residential rezoning processes is overwhelmingly oppositional. That could happen here. It could maybe not happen here. but it talks about because basically the opposition is about perceived negative impacts of the new development. And so apparently that is why we're taking away the voice of the people who are most impacted, the surrounding neighborhood, the people who live in that subdivision, that when they bought it knew that it was platted for single-family dwelling units and that that five-acre lot that was supposed to be a school building they were happy with that. Now it might be a multifamily dwelling, so totally changing the character of their neighborhood so the impacts aren't necessarily perceived when they start seeing increased traffic. It's not perceived when you've changed the character of their neighborhood. That's not perceived, but yet that's in our legislative declaration. Then there's another portion that talks about community opposition and Restrictive local land use policies. Limit the housing supply. So, you know, when I was reading through all of this and you start talking about objective standards and how everything has to be objective, it makes you think, well, what's not objective? What is the subjective standards? Let me tell you what they are. Compatibility. It's subjective for compatibility for the neighborhood. whether or not the development that is occurring next to their property or in their subdivision is compatible. I think they should have every right to voice to their elected officials that it's not compatible, that they don't feel it's compatible. Here's what else they're considering subjective. Consistency. Consistency with the zone district. These are criteria that have been placed since, I don't know, about 1972 or so that most land use decisions are based on. Not just these, all those objective criteria, land use applications get conditioned all the time. But there are things that local government elected officials have to look at because they're there to work in concert with the people who live in their community. and the people who live in their community should be able to hold them accountable and go to a public hearing. They should be able to go and say, look, we've looked through your code. We were involved in the comprehensive plan process. We don't think this is compatible or consistent with the comprehensive plan that, oh, by the way, is required in statute to happen and required to be updated every five years. We don't believe it's consistent with the zone district. They should get to say that. They should get to have their day in front of their elected officials. I know during the discussion that I think some of you missed, I kept pointing to the good senator from El Paso County and the good senator from Denver kept pointing to page 16 of the pre-amended bill at the very bottom where it says, oh, but we fixed this. We put in place an amendment that says basically enacting or applying a local law that requires notifying the public regarding a development application or soliciting and collecting feedback from residents of the subject jurisdiction. That's what the administrative staff will have to do. They're already doing that. That already occurs. And every land use process, surrounding neighbors already get notified. They already have the opportunity to send in comments. That already happens. This is nothing new. This didn't fix the problem of eliminating a public hearing. hearing and that's what this bill is doing is silencing the voice of those individuals who are the most impacted by a change that is occurring of a property then most likelihood was already platted that they were counting on that it was going to be a school or it was going to be open land or it was going to be a park It wasn that not what it not vacant land as people want to try and say that it is It's not vacant. There's a use on that property regardless of what land it is. But if it's in a platted subdivision, and that could be a platted subdivision that is commercial uses or industrial uses. But the surrounding neighbors should get the opportunity to address the change with their elected officials. And putting into law what is already taking place, and essentially in laws, it's in the local government laws, isn't making a difference and it isn't adding it back in. It isn't allowing for a public hearing. And when you look at the definitions, or when you look at the bill and it talks about the administrative process, you can't forget the rest of the statute. And yes, this bill requires that this change on a qualifying property, whether or not it needs to go through a zoning change regulation or zoning change and didn't necessarily need to, whether or not it just needed to change their plat, so a replatting, it can now just go through an administrative process with staff. People do not have the opportunity to have their voice truly heard with their elected officials. And it says in this law, in this bill, shall, shall be an administrative process, shall be reviewed by objective standards. Again, cutting out compatibility, consistency, and cutting out the surrounding neighbor's voice, those who are impacted most. And here's what else is in law already. When you require an administrative process, the next part of the law that's already in law reads, does not require and cannot be elevated to require a public hearing, a recommendation, or a decision by an elected or appointed body, public body, or hearing officer. That's already in law. So by requiring, it's a shell, it's a mandate to local governments. It's telling local government or elected officials how they should deal with their public. And they're telling them you don't get to have a public hearing.
Senator Kirkmire, would you like to go into your next ten minutes?
Yes, please.
Please. Thank you, Mr. President.
You're welcome. Saying you shall have an administrative process. Your staff is the only one who gets to make the decision. and you can't even, as an elected official, elevate it to a public hearing. You can't require a public hearing. You can't elevate it to a public hearing because this body decided to preempt your local control and tell you that you have to put it through an administrative process. It doesn't even get to go to the Planning Commission. That's an advisory board. everywhere else there are requirements in statute that require we have that local governments have a planning commission made up of people who live out in the community and who are advisory they not elected To take that look at it and make a decision and give advice give a recommendation to their town council That's gone. That will be gone. Public doesn't even get to come voice their concern for three minutes. That's usually what they get. Sometimes, I mean, in public hearings I've been in, in land use hearings, we let the public have their voice and let them discuss their problems. They aren't perceived. They are real impacts. There's a real change. It could actually impact the value of their property, their home, their dream, that they spent a lot of time figuring out where they wanted to live, and now you want to change it without working with the local government. Let's just preempt them. I say no. It's not a good idea. Eliminating or restricting public hearings in local governments or in any legislative setting, we lose the balance. Is it really truly more important to be more efficient and be fast versus transparency and democratic participation? Is that really what we do? Is that what we do down here? Let's go fast? And too bad about the people who want to participate in their democratic process and have a voice in a public hearing? Just too bad. Is that what's next? It's more important to go fast. More important to streamline. streamlining out the public's voice. It's more important instead of transparency, accountability, and a democratic participation. Do you know what happens when you streamline like that, when you tell them that it's more important that we go fast, it's more important that we push this through? It reduces public trust and potential legal challenges. You can bet that anyone who calls me up, and I still get a lot of calls from folks about land use processes that are going through the county or land use development that's occurring in the county and even in some of the municipalities. You can bet when they call me up and they start complaining about no public hearing process, especially if they're in a platic subdivision, and that you're just going to push through a change in their neighborhood. you can bet I'm going to let them know that they have a vested property right and that you are basically doing a takings, a legislative takings, a regulatory takings, by changing that platted subdivision without going through a process that allows them to have the opportunity. It's called due process that allows them the opportunity to have their voice in a public hearing. The simplest definition of democracy is government by the people. where the power rests with the citizens who get to exercise it directly or indirectly through their elected representatives, ensuring they have a voice in their own governance. That's what's missing if this bill becomes law. The people lose their voice. I urge a no vote on 1001. Senator Frizzell Thank you Mr President So I had the opportunity yesterday evening, just coincidental actually, to be at an event in Douglas County where every single mayor from Lone Tree to Larkspur, Castle Rock, Parker, Castle Pines, they were all in the room together and talking about the opportunities that they have, their municipalities have, the challenges that they have, their strengths, their weaknesses. It was a fantastic forum. It was great to see them all there together, to hear how they work together. and I say it's coincidental because what we do here in the legislature mandating local government planning decisions, zoning decisions growth decisions, what we do here hits them hard. I knew this before, so I wasn't particularly surprised, but I did want to make sure that you all have had the opportunity to talk to your own municipal leaders, your own community leaders, about the policies passed down by the state legislature year in, year out, over and over and over again. And how they feel that we, the state, are wedging themselves, well, sorry, we, the state, are wedging ourselves between elected leaders and the citizens that they serve, the citizens that they were elected to represent. these people don't take it lightly I don't take it lightly I think it is one of the great blessings of my life that I'm able to stand here and represent the good people of the state of Colorado Democrat, Republican, unaffiliated it doesn't matter that's who I represent And it's important that we understand that we are driving a wedge between the people who are elected to local government positions and the people they serve. We do have an issue with housing affordability. Those of you who know me know that that's something that's important to me to work on, and I've been doing so since the day I walked in the door here. But government interference in local decisions is not the solution to housing affordability. I'd like to direct your attention to an article in the Colorado Sun. And it was dated January 21st, 2026, so super recent. And of those of you who have, I recommend you pull up your search engine of choice and look for this article. It's called Apartment Vacancy in Metro Denver Reaches Highest Rate in 16 Years, Pushing Down Rents Again. Okay, I'm going to read that again because it's important. Apartment vacancy in Metro Denver reaches highest rate in 16 years, pushing down rents. It goes on to say, with more than 34,000 apartments sitting empty at the end of 2025, the Denver area apartment market reached a vacancy rate of 7.6%, the highest in 16 years, as reported by the Apartment Association of Metro Denver. It's not that apartments weren't getting rented. Newly built complexes filled up faster last year than any other year than 2021. There's just so many new units built in the last two years that the excess supply created a large backlog. Multifamily developers have built 125,000 units in the past decade, and that's about one-third of the area's nearly 450,000 existing units. So we don't have, according to this article, and according to the folks that I talk to, because I do still stay pretty well plugged in in the real estate business, right now, today, supply is not the issue. Affordable workforce housing is the issue. And this is a really big onion to peel back, right? It's a super big deal because we have created, legislatively, barriers to the construction of types of housing that bridge those living in apartments and those who want to own a home. We did that. Okay, I did not do that. I did not personally do that and I did not and would not ever vote for such policy. But we did that. And we need to own that. And we need to fix it. but running bill after bill after bill in the name of creating affordable housing oh and by the way tried to pass an amendment to actually make sure that this housing product that's being created here actually addresses affordable attainable workforce housing nope this bill does not require affordable housing yet at the very beginning of the legislative declaration it says the legislative sorry the General Assembly Fines and declares that Coloradans are overwhelmingly burdened with the cost of housing. The number of households that spend more than 30 of their total income on rent or mortgage payments in Colorado increased from in 2014 to 850 in 2024 representing 35 of all households I agree. I agree. But I submit to you that this bill does exactly zero to mitigate that problem. Yesterday we talked, was it just yesterday? Yes, it was. Just yesterday. We talked a lot about the implications of this bill on local infrastructure, because in it, it has no requirements for an infrastructure assessment to be done. There are no requirements to make sure that there is utility capacity to change a property, a parcel, from a single use to a multifamily use. And there is a difference, and it matters. It matters a lot. Taxes pay for infrastructure. And one of the things that I think is very, very important in this piece of legislation, however nuanced it is, is that these folks, these entities who own the properties that we're talking about in this bill, are typically property tax exempt. And so it means that you will be putting housing units online, high density, Tax-free. So the people who live here are not going to be participating in the cost of education, in the cost of law enforcement, first responders, water and sanitation services, plowing, snow plowing.
Senator Rizzo, would you like to go into your next ten minutes?
Yes, sir, I would very much like to.
Please.
And those are important. Fixing potholes. Who's going to fix the potholes? Because they're sure going to be calling the local government, the municipality, the county, to make sure that their potholes are fixed, their roads are plowed. Their water is clean and available. Infrastructure matters. It's a big deal. But you know what matters more? Citizen voices matter. Conversation and dialogue matters. That is fundamental, fundamental to local government. My good colleague from Brighton she knows this firsthand and she described the issues in this legislation in this policy so eloquently And I hope that we all were listening because citizen voices matter They matter to me. I mean, I don't know about you all, but I get phone calls, I get emails, I get texts, I get people who say, Hey, Lisa, can you meet me for coffee in Castle Rock? I have something I really want to talk to you about. And those are the first calls I answer. Those are the first appointments I make. Because it matters. It matters that I show up. And it matters that each one of us shows up for the people that we represent here. And it matters to the mayors and the city council people and the town council people and the commissioners. That dialogue matters. And what this bill does is shut it down. It shuts it down. So I have a little quip that was passed on to me by an old friend years ago. And I use it a lot. And I think it's true. Where you stand depends on where you sit. Where you stand depends on where you sit. So I suspect I'm not the only person who received an email from former Senator Zenzinger, now County Commissioner Zenzinger with Jefferson County, writing on behalf of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners regarding House Bill 26-1001. And I'm not going to read the entire email, but I do want to point out her particular points of opposition to this bill. This is a person who knows the true breadth and depth of where you stand depends on where you sit because it's super easy for us to say hey we're going to create affordable housing here in the calorado legislature we're going to do it again today but when you are sitting as a county commissioner or a town council person or a mayor, it's a different view. It's a different relationship that you have with citizens. It shouldn't be different, actually, but I think that it's a lot closer. And so the former senator, now commissioner, talks about four specific issues with this bill. preserving the public voice reinstate the public hearing process we can't support a mandate that silences our residents and bypasses the constitutional authority of local governments I agree members I agree she's right point two ensure alignment with local plans Development must be strictly contingent upon direct alignment with locally established housing action plans as established in Senate Bill 24 and the local comprehensive plan I agree Anybody else agree Point number three, require reciprocal community benefit. Fast-tracked approvals should be a reciprocal agreement where the public receives a demonstrable benefit, such as guaranteed affordable housing, rather than a gift to developers.
Holy cow, that's a whole other topic. If only I had another ten minutes. Because that is critical to my opposition to this particular policy. There is no guarantee of affordable housing in this policy, none whatsoever. The last point that the good commissioner makes is protect special districts and maintain discretion. include carve outs for urban renewal areas and special districts and ensure that any deviations from standards such as increased height remain subject to discretionary review you would think that the commissioner has had a lot of experience in this building and she has and she understands what this policy means what it means to local government and she also knows how it can be fixed so that it's meaningful so that it does the things that the sponsors want it to do. Members, I am opposed to House Bill 1001 for all of the reasons that I've outlined. we cannot continue to erode the relationship between local government and its citizens. We have no established track record that it's even successful. Again, year after year, However, the Colorado legislature has impacted local government entity planning and zoning decisions, their policies, in the name of creating housing. I submit to you that we have no track record as to the success of that. affordable housing requires a lot it's a complicated capital stack creating truly attainable affordable workforce housing that is not at market rate is complicated financially it's complicated we have mechanisms in place to help accomplish that but we have got to as part of that, be able to attract developers and housing operators to the state of Colorado rather than running them off. And that's exactly what has happened. You want people to come here to invest? Make this an environment where people want to do so. If you want to build affordable housing, then let's have serious conversations. If we want to make sure that people are housed in the ways that they want to be, let's look at the policies that need to change. Let's overhaul the barriers to building condominiums.
Senator Brazil, you have 20 seconds left.
Members, let's actually solve the problem. Let's not keep kicking the can down the road, and let's make sure that we do something meaningful and relevant to the citizens we serve. Thank you.
Senator Bazley.
Thank you, Mr. President. Hey, fellow senators. I'm coming to speak in opposition to House Bill 26-1001. this is one of those bills that reminds me that we need to elevate our game the Colorado State Legislature is tasked to consider legislation that is statewide in fact our tasking precludes us from addressing specific geographical areas within the state We don't make laws about just what will happen in one community or two communities, but our laws in that 44-set volume over there are statewide laws, appropriately so. Rather than making our overriding direction to the local communities, we ought to be concerning ourselves with wildfires and capacities for interstates, funding education. This bill makes the presumption that local communities are not addressing the housing challenges, the affordable housing challenges themselves, and that we have a one-size-fits-all blanket direction coming from this body to override all of their local wisdom. On my way here to the Senate floor this morning, I stopped by to pick up my mail, and I got this letter that I assume was sent to each one of us from the city of Aspen, I believe bears reading. It is in opposition to House Bill 26-1001, Housing Developments on Qualifying Properties. It reads, Dear Honorable Colorado Representatives, the Aspen City Council opposes the passage of House Bill 26-1001. As proposed, the HOME Act, H-O-M-E Act, makes housing opportunities uneasy. As a home rule community committed to land use planning that responds to the unique social economic and environmental conditions in our jurisdiction and planning area our 45 years of active growth management regulations are an essential land use tool Aspen has led the way in development of funding resources and policies that promote the development of affordable housing, resulting in the largest system of affordable housing per capita in the nation. The Aspen City Council urges the state not to strip Colorado communities of their ability to make basic land use decisions. Do not override neighborhood rules with little local input. The ability to service water, as well as impacts to roads and other infrastructure, will detrimentally affect but no longer mitigate under these proposed rules. This approach sidelines local governments and risks permanent changes to communities without clear limits or accountability. Rooted in a strong sense of place and history, we foster a lived-in and inclusive community. Local decision-making matters. Local planning, zoning, and community engagement shape responsible housing solutions. Colorado is made up of diverse communities that need to be allowed to respond uniquely to local housing issues. Blanket regulations won't always work or fit. We are a dedicated community that cultivates the Aspen idea by stewarding the natural and built environments through compassionate and creative governance, inspiring communities worldwide. We respectfully request a no vote on House Bill 26-1001. Sincerely, Rachel E. Edwards, Mayor, along with Aspen City Council Mayor Pro Tem John Doyle, Christine Benedetti, Bill Guth, and Sam Rose. So, members, let's step up to our task and stop meddling in the local affairs of all of our communities across the state who are already addressing this. Our blanket override of their wisdom is going to make matters a lot worse. We need to vote no on House Bill 1001. Thank you, Mr. President.
Senator Pelton R.
Thank you, Mr. President. There have been a lot of good points made already. I won't go over them again. I just want to bring a highlight again to the rural-urban divide. This is a city-centric problem. that they're putting a one-size-fits-all Band-Aid on for the whole state. I've got economic development organizations out in my district that are doing good work around this topic of housing in our communities. This bill would hinder their good progress. We have way too many one size fits all programs, rules, regulations in this state. Let's don't add another one. Respect the locals and the jobs they're doing and the rules they have. There's the reasons they have it. So with that I ask for a no vote on 1001 Senator B Pelton you madam president the good senator from Woodland Park came up here and talked about the city of Aspen
I think this is going to be the first time in my life that I will ever agree with the city of Aspen.
Growing up as a kid from Basalt that went to school down there in Roanfork Valley, but Aspen City Council is right. they have led the way in development funding sources and policies that promote the development of affordable housing resulting in the largest system of affordable housing per capita in the nation they have done that people like myself who grew up in that area knew that in order for us to live we had to live in down valley into in the roaring fork valley we had to i i actually when i came back out of the military, I actually came and lived in Carbondale. But instead, we're going to try to pass a bill that erodes local government control. And what this bill relies on, an administrative approval process by staff based on objective standards, objective standards, not the standards that the people put in front of this. here's my message to local governments there's always a way around it you can always figure out a way to still have your public process you can always figure out a way to do it and you just call it something else local governments have done this forever when I was a county commissioner we found ways around state laws as well to figure out how can we still get public process in because the public is the one that matters. They're the ones that want to have a say in the development of their communities, and they should have that say. I have to laugh, I mean, especially with the land use process. When you're talking about land use and local governments and when you're putting up these big projects, some of them we're dealing with housing in this bill, other things you deal with in land use is green energy projects. You see all these projects for green energy going up and down the eastern plains. There's not a problem with local land use. But in the I-25 corridor, apparently there is a problem with land use that these people want to take it away. And I don't think there is a problem. I think that the whole point of this bill is to take away the citizens' voice. because the citizens, this bill thinks, this bill is saying, the citizens are the problem, which I disagree with. The citizens should have a say in how their communities are developed. Taking that part away is ridiculous in my mind. mandate on local governments to follow this process. It undermines the authority of public elected officials who are responsible for the land use decisions and it puts in the hands of the staff. When you are a local elected official, everywhere you go is your office. Everywhere. In the town of Sterling, we have a Walmart. and my wife and I'd always go with my wife to have to get groceries and to get other stuff the reason why I did that is because I wanted to make sure that we had quality time just her and I well after I became a local elected official it was no longer quality time for her and I It was quality time with the entire county And that's how it works. You hear from your community. You hear from your public. And you hear about projects. And then you say, you have to talk about this in a public meeting because I have to make a decision on this. I can't talk about it outside of the public meeting. but you have those public meetings to make sure you hear what your community is saying. This is just driving a wedge between local governments and state government. I know that the thing about, especially with county commissioners, they're an arm of the state government, but you know what? There's a lot of times that the county does not always comply with what the state wants them to do. We have a perfect example of COVID when that happened. So I'm just saying that this is going to continue to erode the relationship between local governments and state government. And I ask for a no vote on 1001.
Senator Rich.
Thank you, Madam President. Excuse me. Of course, I'm going to rise in opposition to this bill. One of my districts, well, both of them, I guess I should say, Mesa County opposes this bill. Delta County opposes this bill. Palisade opposes this bill. Grand Junction opposes this bill. Pruda opposes this bill. Club 20, that represents 20 counties, opposes this bill. They wrote a seven-page paper on why they opposed this bill. and it's interesting to me when we think about what our governor has talked about so often is that we're one Colorado. We haven't been one Colorado for a long time. But I want to share with you a statement that was made in this article from Club 20. What we are doing here is we are trying to tell local government that the state knows best, We have just created with this bill the fourth county commissioner that's going to get all the votes, and that's not wrong, and that is wrong. This is not One Colorado. This is being bulldozed down the throats of the state that don't support this bill. And the good senator from Peltonio was right. This continues to erode the relationship between the state and local government, and I hope that you care enough to vote against House Bill 26-1001. Thank you.
You're welcome. Senators Moore Wilson.
Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to House Bill 26-1001. as my colleagues have mentioned, the negative impacts that this bill is going to have. I mean, what is our role? Our role is to protect the liberties of our constituents, citizens, to protect their rights. And this is going to undermine it. It's going to silence their voice. Some of the negative consequences where we have local government is not able to plan the land use. They'll have to implement requirements and modify land use codes. That's going to be an administrative cost. that's going to be a cost to the taxpayer and then you have to increase staffing a cost to the taxpayer there could be negative impacts to the infrastructure and they have to accelerate capital improvements, that's going to be a cost to the taxpayer we're taking away the tools of the local government and how they can respond to community concerns and to shape the development of the land and patterns consistent to the locals' priorities. This is going to disrupt and hinder long-term planning such that trying to balance housing development with infrastructure and capacity and environment will ultimately be a cost to the taxpayer. This could negatively impact the property value. Again, costs to the taxpayer. And how do you seek red dress? Lawsuits. Let's increase lawfare, a cost to the taxpayer. and of course if you're trying to defend your rights as a taxpayer, that's going to be a cost. Colleagues, our role is not to ensure that the train arrives on time. is to secure the rights of the people such that they can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. We've seen increased regulations after regulations trying to solve a problem. economics shows history shows that when the government gets involved in a market it only increases inefficiencies and the ultimate goal that was trying to be achieved actually the opposite effect happens and things get more expensive and more inefficient This bill is not good for Coloradans. It's going to make things more expensive. And you're silencing the voice of Coloradans. And when you vote, please put yourself in the shoes of our citizens and think about this. If this is going to impact you and this is going to decrease your property value or incur the cost that I already mentioned would you really truly vote for this I oppose this bill and I ask for a no vote on HB 261001. Thank you.
Further discussion? Senator Exeter.
Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, colleagues, for your comments and for your engagement on this bill. I just want to share just a couple of things, a couple of points that were made, that we made yesterday. compatibility has been used to discriminate for decades. It means shutting out people in communities. Churches can still be involved in this work if they work with a nonprofit with the history of working with affordable housing. And that housing will not be tax exempt. We worked real hard to get this bill to a good space. We mentioned the number of stakeholder meetings that we had, over nine amendments in the House, nine amendments in committee, and we offered four amendments in the second reading yesterday. And we're in a housing crisis. And if we're going to solve that problem and be involved in solving that problem, then we need to be open up to new neighbors. And we ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Senator. Senator.
Thank you. Mr. President, I just want to briefly respond to some of the comments from the opposition to this policy. because I do want to just name that there seems to be this frustration about ultimately what I often hear from my colleagues on this side of the aisle about, I often hear. when it comes to issues around private property rights, when it comes to... I want to be able to demand that my neighbor cannot do what I would not personally choose to do. Okay. Let me just give you an example of how that's actually playing out here. Claude Court, Adams County, 81-unit proposed affordable housing project led by Maker Housing Partners, the largest housing authority in the county. maker purchases this land for development in 2021 because it's close to schools public parks and a transit center great example and yet nimby pushback stalled that project out and now Maker can make the math math That's why we are bringing forward 1001 for your consideration. I considered running an amendment to require a string of pearls to be included so we could clutch them. Y'all, but I do just want to say I want to frame this amendment. Amendment L36 to House Bill 26-1001 will probably go down as one of my favorite amendments of all time because it is the rent control amendment that opposition to this bill ran yesterday. You love to see it. If I were to put the language of this amendment into a standalone bill, I'd love to hear the conversations. But here we are. I heard comments from the opposition both yesterday and today about the fact that, wait, but I'm seeing headlines that there are Metro Denver vacancy apartment rates. And y'all, if you have been following the headlines closely and actually reading the stories about the housing crisis, you'd recognize that the luxury apartment market is at a glut. The fact of the matter is, Coloradans can't afford housing. I talk to Coloradans every day who are making impossible decisions between housing and health care. I talked to a woman this week who is taking her medications every other day in order to try to make ends meet. that's why we are bringing forward 10-0-1 for this body's consideration we ask for an aye vote in order to allow non-profit organizations who do the work who we love to acknowledge from here in the well about the amazing work that they do let's make their ability to build housing just a little bit easier and more straightforward y'all. I ask for an aye vote on 10-01 and thank you all for the discussion.
Seeing no further discussion, there is further discussion. Senator Exum. Thank you Mr. President.
Just want to make one one final point. Projects will not be would not be approved if they don't have sufficient existing or planned infrastructure, water, sewer, or electricity to serve new residents and they don't meet other safety and life aspects of local codes. I'm going to ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of House Bill 1001. Are there any no votes? Senators Mr Minority Leader Kirkmeyer Frizzell Zamora Wilson Rich Rodriguez Pelton B Pelton R Bright Carson Liston Bazley Catlin with a vote of 22 eyes, 13 no, 0, 0, 0, excuse. House vote 1001 is passed. Co-sponsors, Senators, Kip, Judah, Marchman, Cutter, Benavidez, Danielson, Amabile, Weissman, Snyder, Henriksen, Fall, Lindstedt. Please add the president. Majority Leader Rodriguez.
Thank you, Mr. President. There's been a request to remove General Orders second reading of bills off the consent calendar and I move that we put it at the bottom of General Orders second reading of bills. 1103 sorry. The motion is to remove 1103 from the General Orders second reading of bills consent calendar and put it at the end of the General Orders second reading of bills calendar. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed no. The ayes have it and 1103 will be removed from the General Orders second reading of bills consent calendar. Thank you, Mr. President. Pursuant to Senate Rule 21C, I move the Senate grant leave to the Joint Budget Committee to meet while the Senate is in session. For the motion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Polls no. The ayes have it, and that motion is adopted. General orders. Second reading of bills. Senator Kolker.
Thank you, Mr. President. and I move the Senate resolve itself in the committee of the whole for the consideration of general order second reading of bills. You move the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. That motion is adopted. The Senate resolve itself in the whole for consideration of general order second reading of bills and Senator Coker will take the chair. Committee will come to order and the cult rule is relaxed.
Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Senate proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 132. The motion is to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 132. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.
We will hear Senate Bill 132. Mr. Schauffler, will you please read the title of Senate Bill 132.
Senate Bill 132 by Senators Roberts and Carson and Representative Joseph concerning a requirement that a law enforcement officer offer voluntary preliminary screening tests for alcohol to a driver.
Senator Roberts.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 132 and the Judiciary Committee report.
To the Judiciary Committee report, Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the Judiciary
Committee, we added an amendment to clarify the time frame for which this test would be offered and some language about what happens if such a test is not available. I ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the motion is
The adoption of the Judicial Community Report. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Colleagues, pleased to be here with the good Senator from Highlands Ranch to present Senate Bill 132. This bill is known as Magnus' Law. This is named after Magnus White, who was tragically killed in 2023 by a driver hitting him while he was riding his bike on a county road, county highway in Boulder County. He was a U.S. Junior National Team cyclist out on a training ride and brutally taken away by a driver who hit him from behind. What happened at that scene was a lot of chaos and a lot of confusion and no DUI investigation. Facts presented themselves after the fact during trial that the driver was almost certainly under the influence of alcohol and drugs, but no test and no DUI investigation was done at the scene to make sure that that evidence was collected. We also heard story in committee from another individual who was crashed with a car and driver appeared to be intoxicated, but the police never went forward with doing a DUI investigation. And so what we're seeking to do in this bill is to make sure that victims of these crashes where there's death or serious bodily injury, that the officers try to get as much information as possible and conduct a full investigation so that victims and their families can have a full picture of what happened and justice can be pursued from there we worked really closely with law enforcement with prosecutors with defense attorneys to get the language to a place where this is certainly not a violation or concern for anybody's fourth amendment rights that we are tracking with other statute and procedure that happens at crass investigations or dui investigations and ultimately this is a good bill for transparency and for making sure that justice can be served when these terrible crashes and incidents happen. So with that, I would appreciate your aye vote.
Senator Carson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Frisco for his leadership on this issue. This is an important bill, I believe, to close what you might think of as a loophole. And it's, you know, at the scene of a crash where a person has been killed or very seriously injured, and it's apparent to law enforcement that the driver of the vehicle was at fault, we want to make sure, absolutely sure, we gather all of the evidence within that immediate period of time. So this is that period before the law enforcement officer might have probable cause to direct a test. But this is a voluntary test that would be administered. We've worked hard, as my colleague said, to make sure that it's appropriate under any constitutional concerns. And I think we've ended up in a good spot here. We've got support from law enforcement, prosecution, and we've worked as well with the defense bar to make sure their concerns are addressed. I'm wearing this red ribbon today, my colleague as well, because this is, I think, a very appropriate day for this bill to come forward. This is Mothers Against Drunk Driving annual advocacy day here at the Capitol And as you all know they done a great deal of work over the years to try and educate the public try and reduce these drunk driving intoxicated impaired driving however you want to refer to it in the country I think we've made a lot of progress, but unfortunately there's a lot more to do, and that's why we have a bill like this. I'll just give you a couple of very unfortunate statistics. In Colorado alone, last year, 235 lives were taken due to impaired driving just in our state. That's almost a 10% increase from 2024. So you can see we still have a lot of work to do on this issue to avoid these tragedies. And as my colleague mentioned, Magnus White was one of those. and this law is named after what I hope will become a law will be named after him. I also want to point out they have today a number of these cards of just folks. They're really moving cards of folks in our state who have been killed by drunk drivers or impaired drivers. again, you know, I know people use different terminology, but basically folks who should not have been drinking and got into that vehicle and it ended up in the loss of a life of one of our fellow citizens. So I think this bill, again, will work to address this issue and I would urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Amabile.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the white family lives in my district, and this accident, this crash, happened in my district. And I have seen the agony that this has caused for this family. And, of course, I'm connected to the cycling community in Boulder, and he was a rising star. He was headed for the world championships and beyond. So it is right and fitting that we do something in this building to help prevent future crashes like this one. And I just want to say that the white family has turned their tragedy into advocacy, and supporting this bill is a way of supporting them in their journey. So I hope you'll be a yes today. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of Senate Bill 132. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the bill is adopted. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Senate now proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 104.
The motion is to proceed out of order and take up Senate Bill 104. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and Senate Bill 104 will be taken up. Senator Snyder.
Thank you, Mr. Oh, wait.
Mr. Schauffler, will you please read the title to Senate Bill 104?
Senate Bill 104 by Senators Liston and Snyder Representative Clifford concerning a requirement to install exterior key boxes at schools Thank you Senator Snyder
Thank you. I move Senate Bill 104 and the Judiciary Committee report.
To the committee reports.
Senator Snyder. Very good.
Senator Liston.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we do have one amendment to the committee report. I move amendment L-008 to Senate Bill 104.
Okay, report the report first.
Senator Snyder. Okay, thank you. In the Judiciary Committee, we made some improvements to the bill with four amendments, basically clarified that schools that already have a good system, a lockbox in place, and meets the requirements, don't have to do anything. Allows schools to use alternative plans and procedures to provide emergency access for local law enforcement. Extends the implementation deadline from 2028 to 2030 and clarifies that schools are not required to install the box if they apply but do not receive funding through the school security reimbursement program, which is part of Proposition KK, or resulting from that.
So, uh, is there any other discussion on the judicial committee report? Seeing none, the motion is to move the judicial committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the committee report is adopted. Senator Liston.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we do have one small amendment. There is an amendment at the desk. Would you please move that amendment?
I will. Thank you. I move Amendment L-008. Wait, wait. I'm sorry. My apologies. Mr. Schauffler, will you read the amendment first?
Amendment L-8, amend the Judiciary Committee report.
Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-008 to Senate Bill 104.
Thank you. That's a proper motion. Do you have comments on the amendment?
Sure. Members, this is a minor clarifying amendment. What this amendment does is it says installing an exterior key box at a school as required by this section is a permissible use of the disbursement from the school security disbursement program. We ask for an aye vote on Amendment L-008.
Any other discussion on this amendment? Seeing none, the motion is Amendment L-008 to the Judiciary Community Report in Senate Bill 104. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. To the bill, Senator Liston.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I'm very proud to present Senate Bill 26104 along with my good colleague, Senator Snyder. This bill addresses a very practical issue in school safety, ensuring law enforcement has the keys and access they need to respond quickly during an emergency. One of the lessons that was learned from the tragedy that we've had in the past is that time really matters and access is very, very important. When officers respond to incidents, seconds matter. The faster officers can re-reach the threat, the sooner they can neutralize the attacker and begin providing medical care to potential victims. Senate Bill 104 addresses the challenge by encouraging schools to install secure exterior key boxes containing the keys and access devices officers need to enter the buildings and move through locked doors during an emergency So the idea of a picture is worth a thousand words. So this, members, is what a key box looks like. This is steel, reinforced steel. This is bolted onto the school or the building. And believe me, this cannot be removed. If anybody wants to come up here and lift this and check it out, you're welcome to do so. But this is what a lockbox is. And with that, we ask for an aye vote for Senate Bill 104.
Any further discussion? Senator Carson.
You want to hold this?
Go ahead, Senator Carson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this bill. We voted it out of the Judiciary Committee, obviously. Initially, I had some concerns that it might be too much of a mandate, but my colleagues here who have brought the bill made quite a few amendments that I think made it clear that if certain school districts have their own protocols and systems in place around school security, that this isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all mandate. But I do think we've got to continue to do more and more in the education realm to protect the young people of this state. When I was on the Douglas County School Board, we worked very closely with law enforcement. And as an indication of what I think every different school district has their own approach to these things, but in Douglas County, I'm very proud to say that working with our Sheriff's Department and our other law enforcement and the voters in Douglas County, approving funding to make sure that we have an armed security resource officer in every high school and every middle school, and they also have a very detailed plan to protect the elementary schools in those immediate areas as well. And so, you know, every school district is going to have their approach to this issue, but I think this bill is a very important message we send that we want to make absolutely sure that law enforcement can get access to anything in those facilities to protect the children and the teachers and the other employees that are there. So I commend my colleagues for bringing this bill and pleased to support it.
Senator Baisley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the comments just now from the good Senator from Hyman's Ranch. I have a kind of a follow-up question for the sponsors, especially after all of the amendments have gone through. in the end, in its current state as amended, if there is sufficient funding for a school, there's no restrictions from their using it, but they choose to not. Is a school allowed to deny having that lockbox installed on their school, or are they required to, even if they don't want to, and the funding is there? Does that make sense? Senator Snyder.
Thank you for the question, Senator.
If they apply for the school security funding and they are denied that, then no, they are not required to put it in. But if they apply and they get the funding, then they would be required, yes.
Any further discussion on Senate Bill 104? Seeing none, the motion before the bounties of the adoption of Senate Bill 104. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Friday, March the 15th. Friday the 13th, March 2026.
The motion is to lay over the balance of the calendar until March 13th. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The aye has it. The balance of the calendar is laid over. Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the committee rise and report.
The motion for the committee is to rise and report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the committee will rise and report.
Senator Colton, the committee will, the Senate will come to order. Senator Colton.
Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has met and had a couple of bills under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?
March 12, 2026, Mr. President, in committee that whole begs leave to report it as had under consideration the following attached bills being the second reading thereof. Makes following recommendations thereon. Senate Bill 132, as amended. Senate Bill 104, as amended. Passed on second reading in order to engross them placed in the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senate Bill 120, Senate Bill 40, House Bill 1017, Senate Bill 112, House Bill 1103, laid over until March 13, 2026, and retaining their place in the calendar.
Senator Kolk Thank you Mr President I move for the adoption of the report The motion is the adoption of the committee of the report Are there any no votes With a vote of 35 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absences, 0 excuse me, the whole report is adopted. Senate Bill 132 is amended. Senate Bill 104 is amended. Passed, segued, and ordered, gross, place, counter, third, and final pass. Senate Bill 120, 40, House Bill 1017, Senate Bill 112, House Bill 1103, laid over until 313, 2026, and retaining their place on the calendar.
Consideration of House amendments to Senate bills.
Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. I move to lay over consideration of House amendments on Senate Bill 13 until Friday, March 13th.
The motion is to lay over consideration House amendments on Senate Bill 013 until Friday, March 13th. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Polls no. The ayes have it. And the consideration House amendments on Senate Bill 013, we lay it over until Friday, March 13th. Governor's appointments. Consent calendar.
Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the appointments for State Board of Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund on Governor's appointment consent calendar lay over until Friday. March 13th, 2026.
The motion is laid over. The appointments for the State Board of Great Outdoors, Colorado Trust Fund, and Governor's appointments can send counter Friday, March 13th, 2026. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ah, wow. That was powerful. But the aye is having the appointments for the State Board of Great Outdoors, Colorado Trust Fund, and Governor's appointments can send counter to Friday, March 13th, 2026.
Would you rather do Rob Rodriguez? Ah.
Mr. Schaffler, please read the remaining appointments listed on the consent calendar.
appointed Gary Reif of Denver Colorado reappointed.
Julia Rodriguez. Thank you Mr. President. I move for the passage of all the appointments on the consideration of government appointment consent calendar which is Liz Howell of Grand Junction, Andrew Caro of Carbondale for the Charter School Institute Board Timothy Fry of Grand Junction and Jeff Gary Reif of Denver for the Board of Trustees for Colorado Mesa University Any discussion Seeing none the motion is a confirmation of the appointments on the consent calendar Are there any no votes on the consent calendar
With a vote of 35 I, 0 no, 0 absent and 0 excused, those appointments are confirmed. Sign of bills. The President has signed Senate Joint Resolution 1. Announcements. Senator Kipp.
Members of Senate Finance, unusually we are meeting upon adjournment, 15 minutes upon adjournment today, to hear Senate Bill 135, where we'll be meeting in room 357. See you in 15 minutes after he bangs that gavel.
Very good. Senator Danielson.
Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick announcement about the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee. We will be meeting on adjournment in about 10-15 minutes to take up Senate Bill 134, which I'm sure none of you have heard anything about from anyone. And I just wanted to remind folks that we're limiting testimony to two minutes per witness, four panels per position and five minutes for question and answer like I outlined a couple of days ago on for those who haven't been to the BLT committee this year yet we have moved rooms we are in Senate committee room 352 on the third floor thanks payment card network fees what's
that senator Mullica thank you mr. president members Senate Health and Human Services Committee will be meeting at 1 30 the old Supreme Court to hear appointments for the medical services board as well as Senate Bill 99, House Bill 1142, and Senate Bill 60. Members, for the record, Senate Bill 60 will be moving up as the first bill to be heard at 1.30. See you there.
Very good.
Senator Amabile. Thank you, Mr. President. It's like Groundhog Day. I think everybody knows what I'm about to say. Yes.
Joint Budget Committee.
know we never left but we are going to meet maybe right after this and then
maybe not until 1 30. see ya very good senator Exum thank you mr. president
Senate local government housing will be meeting this afternoon in room 357 and we hear nominations for the state housing board and also nominations for Colorado Housing and Finance Authority Board of Directors and then we'll have a couple of bills uh Senate Bill 105 Senator Hendricks and Senate Bill 98 Senators Liston and Ball. Thank you. Very good. Senator Liston. Just briefly, thank you, Mr. President. I've checked with the minority leader and majority leader, and tomorrow, if we're on the floor, I ask to be excused by 1155.
Thank you. All those opposed, say no.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. President. The Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee is meeting today at 1.30 in room 352. We will hear appointments for the Water Quality Control Commission, followed by House Bill 1031 and then Senate Bill 123.
Senator Mabley.
Thanks, Mr. President. We are also having appropriations tomorrow at 830 across the street.
Very good.
Mr. Majority Leader.
Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, we will be recessing as we need to read some bills across the desk. There's no need to return. On that note, Mr. President, I move the Senate recess until 11.30 a.m. today.
You're in the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Senate will recess until 11.30 a.m. today.
Great work, team. Thank you, sir. Best team in all time. Thank you. Thank you.