Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 105

belongs to you. Let your purpose prevail over every plan of man. Establish your will in this Senate and let this be a place where righteousness and wisdom will flow like the mighty Colorado

Senators, Amabile, Faisley, Ball, Benavidez, Bridges, Bright, Carson, Catlin. Cutter. Danielson. Excuse. Doherty. Exum. Frizzell. Gonzalez. Hendrickson. Judah. Kip. Kirkmeyer. Kolker. Linstead. Liston. Marchman. Mullica. Pelton B. Pelton R. Rich. Roberts. Rodriguez. Simpson, Snyder, Sullivan, Wallace, Weissman, Zamora Wilson.

Let's do this.

One excuse, we have a quorum. Senator Kirkmeyer, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Approval of the journal. Senator Lindstedt.

as corrected by the Secretary. You heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. Man, but for some weird reason, the ayes have it every time that motion is adopted. Senate Services. Correctly printed, Senate Bill 180 and 181. Senate Resolution 8, correctly engrossed Senate Bill 131, 134, 142, 166, correctly re-engrossed Senate Bill 116, 135, 160, 163, 169. Correctly revised House Bill 1019 and 1318, correctly re-revised House Bill 1008, 1009, 1053, 1088, 1288, and 1320. Correctly enrolled Senate Bill 95 and 120. Committee reports. Committee on Education after consideration on the merits. Committee recommends the following. House Bill 1006 be amended as follows. and as so amended be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Committee on Judiciary after consideration on the merits of the Committee recommends the following House Bill 1312 be amended as follows and as so amended be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation House Bill 1322 be amended as follows and as so amended be referred The following grit and counting on the merits of committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 172 be amended as follows, and if so amended be referred to the committee on appropriations with favorable recommendation. Committee on appropriations, after consideration on the merits of committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 17 be amended as follows, and if so amended be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation. Senate Bill 45 be amended as follows, and if so amended be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation. Senate Bill 91 be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation. Senate Bill 114 be amended as follows, and, as so amended, be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Senate Bill 115, be amended as follows and, as so amended, be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Senate Bill 154, be amended as follows, and, as so amended, be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that it be placed on consent calendar. Senate Bill 156, be amended as follows, and, as so amended, be referred to the Committee of the Who with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation to be placed on consent calendar. Senate Bill 157, be amended as follows and, as so amended, be referred to the Committee with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that it be placed in the consent calendar. Senate Bill 170 be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1123 be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1214 be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that it be placed in the consent calendar. House Bill 1242 be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1258 be amended as follows. And as so known to be amended be it referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1260 be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that be placed in the consent calendar. Conference committee reports.

Introduction of bills. Senna Bill 182 by Senators Snyder and Simpson, Representative Caldwell and Paschal, concerning an updated clean energy plan from a municipally owned utility. Transportation and energy.

Thank you. You have heard the motion to proceed out of order for a moment, a rare moment of personal privilege. All those in favor, please say aye.

All those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and we will proceed out of order for a rare moment of personal privilege. Mr. President, Senator Coleman.

Granted.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Majority Leader Rodriguez.

The motion is proceeded out of order for consideration of conference committee reports. All those in favor, say aye.

Oppose no. Wow. There's one no. But the ayes have it, and that motion is adopted. We will proceed out of order. Consideration of conference committee reports.

Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1411.

Okay, now, Senator Kroegmeyer, motion.

Thank you.

It's all good. No fine needed.

Good morning. Good to see you. Your uncle likes me.

Any discussion? Senator Kirkmeyer.

Very good. Senator Kirkmeyer will now be fined $2 for referring to the President as Senator Mr. Chair twice.

It's okay.

Two bucks.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the adoption of the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1411. Are there any no votes?

With a vote of 34 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, and 1 excuse, the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1411 is adopted. Senator.

Amabile.

I think it's time for this. Mr. President, Your Excellency. Wow. Here we go.

Senator Mabule will be credited $1 to whatever fine she... Seeing no further discussion, the motions for the repassage of House Bill 1411. Are there any no votes?

Senator Zamora Wilson. Baisley, repassage of 1411. With a vote of 32 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent, and 1 excuse, House Bill 1411 is repassed. Both sponsors.

I'll just do it. Colleagues, we'll be pausing for a minute because we have to bring up the Senate bill 14 or house bill 1410 and it needs to be passed out before we make a motion. And now we will take a senatorial five.

Oh, yeah, we back in the game. Mr. Majority Leader.

Finish chewing.

You got to eat sometime.

Thank you, Mr. President.

You've heard the motion. This requires a two-thirds vote. All those in favor say aye.

Votes no.

The ayes haven't seen in Rule 26B will be suspended. To consider conference committee reports on the same day the report is read. Will the clerk, Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1410.

Senator Bridges.

Any discussion? Seeing none, the motions for the adoption of the first report of the First Conference Committee on House Bill 1410. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34 ayes 0 no 0 absent and one excused, the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1410 is adopted. Senator Bridges.

Further discussion There is discussion Senator Frizzell Thank you Mr President Members I just wanted to take one minute to talk about the amendment that we voted to add to House Bill 261410 regarding the IDD community

and that was passed. And, in fact, we heard the conference committee report on that particular bill at the end of last week. And you might recall that not only did the conference committee appropriate that $7.1 million, they added to that, so I think it was a total of $10 million additional, totaling $20 million from the Office of Information Technologies Revolving Cash Fund.

That said, and I want to say a couple of things about the work of our Joint Budget Committee on this particular issue.

Further discussion?

Further discussion. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is a repassage of House Bill 1410. Are there any no votes?

Mr. Minority Leader, Senators Frizzell, Zamora Wilson, Baisley, Rich, Liston, Catlin, Pelton R, Carson, Bright, Pelton B. With a vote of 23 ayes, 11 no, zero absent, and one excused, House Bill 1410 is repassed. both sponsors. Special order seconder bill's consent calendar, Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion to Senate take up those bills on special orders at the hour of 10.06 a.m. This requires a two-thirds vote. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed no. The ayes have it. That motion is adopted. Senate will take up those bills on special orders considered at the hour of 10.06 a.m. Special orders, second meeting the bills. Consent calendar.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye.

Oppose no. The motion is adopted. The Senate will resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of special orders. Second reading of bills, the Senate calendar, Senator Roberts will take the chair.

Senate Bill 154 by Senator Simpson and Mullica and Representatives McCluskey and Caldwell concerning a modification to appointments to the Colorado Channel Authority Board. Senate Bill 156 by Senators Kip and Carson and Representatives Phillips and Gonzalez concerning changes to the State Workforce Development Council's practices. Senate Bill 157 by Senator Peltner and Hendrickson concerning the abandonment of a town that has critical water infrastructure for the residents of the town.

Thank you Mr Chair I move for the passage of all the bills on special order second rating of bill consent calendar which is Senate Bill 154 and the Appropriations Report Senate Bill 156 the Business Labor Technology and the Appropriations Report Senate Bill 157 the Local Government and Housing and the Appropriations Report Is there any discussion on any of the bills, on any of the committee reports? The motion before us is the adoption of all the committee reports on the special order second reading of bills consent calendar.

Aye.

Is there any discussion on any of the bills on the consent calendar? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of all the bills on the special order second reading of bills consent calendar.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the committee to rise and report. The motion is for the committee to rise and report.

Aye.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has had a number of bills under consideration.

April 28, 2026. Mr. President, the committee, the whole begs leave to report it. It has had under consideration the following tax bills being the second reading thereof. Makes following recommendations thereon. Senate Bill 154, as amended. Senate Bill 156, as amended. Senate Bill 157, as amended. Pass on second reading. Order engrossed and placed on the calendar for third reading. Final passage.

The motion is the adoption of the committee whole report. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, and 1 excuse, committee whole report is adopted. Senate 154 is amended, 156 is amended, 157 is amended, passed. Second meeting, order grows, plays counter for third reading, and final passage. Second meeting of bills, special orders, Majority Rodriguez.

In motion, the Senate take up those bills on special orders at the hour of 1010 a.m. This requires two-thirds vote. All those in favor say aye.

Holds no. If ayes have it, that motion is adopted. Senate take up those bills on special orders at the hour of 1010 a.m. Special order second reading of the bill.

You vote the motion. All those in favor, say aye.

Holds no. The ayes have it. That motion is adopted. The Senate resolve itself to committee of the whole for consideration of special orders, second reading of bills, and Senator Roberts will take the chair.

SENATE BILL 17 BY SENATORS DOHERTY AND BRIGHT CONCERNING CHANGES TO OUT-OF-NETWORK HEALTH CARE SERVICES DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES FOR HEALTH INSURANCE CARRIERS.

I MOVE THE HEALTH COMMITTEE REPORT. CAN WE DO THE BILL AND BOTH THE COMMITTEE REPORTS? Sorry, I moved Senate Bill 17 in the Health Committee Report and the Appropriations Committee Report.

Thank you. In Health Committee, we worked with stakeholders on some technical amendments in order to allow for batching of similar claims for out-of-network claims.

Aye.

Senator Dougherty. I move the appropriations report. Any discussion? We worked with the division to provide information to them in order to lower the fiscal note. I urge an aye vote. Any further discussion? Seeing none,

Senator Bright. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move Senate Bill 17.

I'd love to also add that the bill adds mechanisms for the Department of Regulatory Agencies to enforce out-of-network claim payment requirements. Do I eat this or what? Say it again.

I would love to speak to the bill, Senate Bill 17. This bill adds mechanisms for the Department of Regulatory Agencies to enforce out-of-network claim payment requirements.

It was close.

Aye.

Senate Bill 45 by Senator Liston and Mullica and Representative Paschal and Winter T concerning promoting workforce development opportunities in Colorado's nuclear sector.

Okay, to the Education Committee report. Very good.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion enforces the adoption of the Education Committee report. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed no. The ayes have it. The committee report is adopted.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of the appropriations committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the appropriations report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Liston. Very good. Thank you,

All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and Senate Bill 45 is adopted. The clerk, please read the title of Senate Bill 91.

Senator Snyder.

To the committee report.

Further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the motion of force is the adoption of the business, labor, and technology committee report. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The committee report is adopted. To the bill. Any further discussion? Senator Cutter.

but this is a very, very, very narrow way to address newspapers who have been struggling mightily. I have a deep concern about local news and newspapers being able to continue to thrive. I think that's a key tenet of democracy. It's something that's really important to all of us, especially in some of these smaller communities that we're really talking about. Independent news, thriving independent news is super important. And this just, if we had to, if these papers had to classify individuals differently than as independent contractors, it would be incredibly costly for them and they have to pass that on to customers and the business model is already in jeopardy So that why I supporting this bill because I support local news and want to see it continue and do any small thing I can to help facilitate that. So I hope you'll join us in supporting Senate Bill 91.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the sponsors of this legislation. This is, I think, a demonstration of where corporate power yet again seeks to change the rules in order to benefit themselves. When we see an operation like the Denver Post that is the behemoth within the newspaper industry right now, seeking to advance policy that will benefit themselves, as opposed to just doing the work to pay their workers and compensate their workers fairly, it then begs the question in a broader point. If we start to shift the statutes and the regulations around who gets qualified and determined as an independent contractor in this narrow context, what's then to stop the next context, the next industry from saying, well, they did that for them, why not for me too? I understand. I understand wholeheartedly that the billionaires who own the Denver Post don't want to pay their workers fairly. I get that. Why would we then change the law to allow that to continue? Let's pay workers what they are owed. The AFL-CIO is opposed to this bill. I ask for a no vote on this policy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my good colleague from Denver, of course. But I have to correct a few of the statements that she made. We have not contacted or been in contact with the Denver Post at all. They have never been a part of this bill. As I said at the beginning, they are a separate model, and they got into some trouble, ended up having to be liable for back pay and wages because their third-party vendor that they hired to run their delivery service did not pay their people correctly. And so there were, I believe there were five cases dealing with that, but that has nothing to do with our bill. Our bill is dealing about the truly independent contractors for the small papers from Grand Junction to Durango. As I mentioned earlier, Colorado Springs Gazette uses the same model. So, and as far as the unions go, we talked to the Teamsters who have a contract with the Denver Post, and they were fine with this. We talked to Labor. It wasn't until really the very last minute that suddenly they had issues about this model that we're using. But we did take language that they had suggested We just couldn get them to a position of support And I think we have to recognize that we all know the existential threat independent news is facing in today world So we see what's happening with the large papers. Either they get a hedge fund or private equity or some billionaire like Bezos to buy it. It's happened in L.A. It's happened in Washington Post, the L.A. Times. if you don't have a white knight, you're really facing an existential threat. What we're doing with this bill is saying that this is a system that works for them. We just want to put it into statute so they have some certainty and know that they can continue operating with the way they historically always have. I'm sure many people here had a newspaper route when they were younger. I know I did for a little while, but that's what we're talking about. And the people we talked to who are independent deliveries, who testified in committee, they're happy with the current situation. They're not looking to be made FTEs. Because if these struggling papers, who are kind of on their hind legs already, had to pay these and classify these people as FTEs, they could not afford that. And they would be no longer delivering their papers. So I thank the good senator from Denver for her comments. I just want to set the record straight. And with that, we ask for an aye vote.

I just want to echo the comments of my co-prime, and also thank you for the concern. You know, we really did work hard on this to make sure that labor globally wasn't impacted, and I understand that it's a tough needle to thread, but the fact that we – there's no way we would be doing this to support a venture capital firm who bought out the Denver Post. That is not the goal of this bill, and I just want to be sure everyone understands. This is directed towards small, independent, local papers. A newspaper delivery person who throws papers for like two hours in the morning shouldn't be considered a full-time employee in all the benefits that that entails. So hope that you will support this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And one final point, folks. The only profession that is actually mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is the free press and journalism. So I do think this idea that there's a slippery slope, that next year the pizza delivery people will be coming and looking for a similar classification. I think that a big separation between them and what we're talking about here is I think we all value an independent free press. We're trying our best to help these smaller entities. I wish we could be like New Mexico. They've got a wonderful tax credit program that's really supporting journalists and small newspapers. Obviously, we're not in a position to do that, but I think it's incumbent upon us to recognize and to protect a free and fair press. And with that, we do ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would initially respond that also in the Constitution they mention the Postal Service. So those are employees as well. That was a part of the foundation of the United States is that we had a working post office to connect everybody. On this, I mean, I am one of those who can recall 60 plus years ago being a paper boy. We would get our newspapers delivered to our house and go out. and deliver them. You used to actually get the newspaper inside of the screen door so that the rain wouldn't get on it, or in upstate New York the snow wouldn't get on it, so it would be protected. And in that time it was the foundation of everything that, you know, my brother and I, my sister actually, took over our routes after we got older was the foundation of everything that we were able to do. We learned how to run a business, to save money, to spend our money. I mean, we were loaded at that time. With the money that we made there, that was then a pack of baseball cards were only a nickel, and you got gum inside of it. And so we could buy actually an entire box for $1.20 and got ourselves into business with trading our cards with our friends, trading off all of our Yankees cards for their Mets cards. We used to do that, and a comic book was only 12 cents. And so we were able to do that. But that was the foundation of business, started as paper boys. And certainly we can't go back to that, but it would be nice if we could. But these employees should get paid properly, and I'm glad to hear from the senator from Denver reminding us of that fact that those people should get paid. And those billionaires who own our airwaves and our printed matter, they should be able to find a way to squeeze out a couple of bucks to make sure that these people who are up at 4 o'clock in the morning folding papers in their cars as they drive in our neighborhoods that they properly get paid.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, I sit on the Business, Labor, and Technology Committee and heard this bill several weeks ago, and I think it's a good bill. I have to think about, personally, you know, I'm one of these odd rarities that actually read the hard copy of the newspaper every day, It's very nice that our local newspaper, the Gazette and the Denver Post, have it here for all of us to read, and I do my best to read. You know, it's something nice about having the paper in your hands that you can thumb through versus trying to read the fine print on your phone if you can read it at all. But the reason I speak from some experience that in Colorado Springs where my wife and I have been subscribers to the Gazette for probably at least 30 years. I can't remember so long. But we enjoy getting the paper. And our delivery person, I believe her name is, I want to say, Carolyn Espinoza. She has been the delivery person for the last, gosh, at least the last 10 years. She delivers it faithfully every morning by at least 7 o'clock. And if there's ever a problem, which is rare, but if there is, we have her phone number, and we can call her up and say, hey, the paper got wet because sometimes even though it's in the plastic bag, there's rain or snow or whatever. and she will come and re-deliver the paper or if it's lost. So we treat her very well. She is an independent contractor and she loves the job I think she has another part job but she obviously an early morning riser and she likes delivery She's had the same customers for year after year, and we do that thing called a tip. We always tip her, send her a nice Christmas card and send her a check or cash, whatever we do. But we appreciate the independent contractors, whether it's her or the others, because that's what they want to do. They enjoy the job. They enjoy the flexibility. She's probably done by 8 or 8.30 in the morning and can go to her other job or what she wants to do. So I think this is a great, wonderful bill, and I urge an aye vote on Senate Bill 91. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for this helpful discussion. Let me just correct the record for myself, and I appreciate the additional information from the good senator from El Paso County about this. Let me just correct the records to say not the behemoth that is the Denver Post, but let's talk about the behemoth owners of the Denver Post who are trying to starve out not only that newspaper, but many of the newspapers that they own across the country. The third-party contractor who doesn't have anything to do with any of this, who is also misclassifying the workers, I'm sure that they are just trying to make ends meet. But this is how it happens, friends. This is how it happens. When we are told that journalism is starving, and so let us pay the folks who actually ensure that the news gets delivered, let's ensure that they get paid the least. I'm sorry. I just have to say I cannot support this bill. I encourage a no vote. I respect where my colleagues are coming from in this issue and trying to ensure that we are supporting local journalism, that we are supporting reporting, that we are supporting workers, that we are supporting the people who actually do the work to conduct independent journalism and to stand up for truth and to fight against the AI bots that are coming for us all. But let's be clear. The folks who we should be holding to account are the behemoth corporate owners, not the workers themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of this bill, and I think the context of the discussion here is independent contractors versus employees. And owning a business and having both, there's definitely a time and a place for employees, and there's a time and a place for an independent contractor. This is very parallel to a bill that I ran earlier that addressed independent contractors and employees. And the department I was working with actually made the choice to bring independent contractors in-house as employees. And I was initially shocked but then quite pleased that it saved the government money to bring those folks in from independent contractors to employees And so I think the insinuation that we mistreating people because we contract with them rather than employ them is a little bit inaccurate. And so I would encourage that we keep this space open for the interpretation of how business wants to treat the folks that help it work forward. Not always does it have to be an employee. Not always does it have to be an independent contractor. And I feel like we would love to, it would be best to leave those decisions up in the halls of the folks that run those businesses. So I rise in support of this bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to support this bill. I think the Senator from Jefferson County and from Manitou Springs, they're just working hard to save some people's jobs here. I think the reality is, you know, a lot of people like to be independent contractors. It's actually the Senator from Jefferson County would be interested to know that I delivered the Lakewood Sentinel years ago in her district. So I, like the senator from Centennial, was also a newspaper delivery boy many years ago in Lakewood. But I think this is a good bill. It's about keeping jobs in place. I don't see the need to change the system, so I support it. Thank you.

Senate Bill 114 by Senator Marchman and Bright and Representative Titone and Soper concerning a spirituous liquor manufacturer sales rooms.

Okay. To the Business Labor Technology Committee Report. Great.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion enforces the adoption of the committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. You guys have it, and the Business, Labor, and Technology Committee report is adopted. To the Appropriations Committee report, Senator Marchman.

the motion of force is the adoption of the Appropriations Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the committee report is adopted.

Senator Bright.

There is an amendment at the desk. I did forget. Will the clerk please read L7?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L007. To the amendment. What this is is almost forgotten, but I remembered to run it. This is a technical amendment that was requested by CML. What this does, it just makes sure that the local licensing that they asked for and that we included in this bill is just following their standard licensing procedures. So I would ask for an aye vote on L-007.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I rise in support of this bill, and here's why. Last year I supported the bill, but I was a little frustrated with the whole local control aspect of it. I wanted to make sure that the local control portion of this bill, you guys have done an excellent job in working on that aspect of it to make sure that they have to go through the same process when you go through the licensing and that sort of thing. We have a distillery in Sterling. And what people don't understand is like with distilleries, it takes time. So your first year when you're distilling, when you're making the libations, it takes time to create that aspect of it. And then it takes months and months and months to make sure that everything's fermented properly and all that stuff. But the biggest part of this bill that I was concerned about was making sure that they go through the same aspects of the local control. As a city and county commissioner, when they would bring liquor licenses in front of us, we asked a lot of questions to make sure that there were no problems with what was going on with the liquor license. And so I applaud the fact that you guys brought that into this bill. Thank you very much. And a quote from Benjamin Franklin. He talks about beer, but beer is proof that God loves us. And that's the way we should look at this as well. So I appreciate it, and thank you very much for bringing the bill. Ask for an aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the committee rise and report.

Will the clerk please read the report?

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the...

I'm requesting to take House Bill 1318 off the consent calendar

Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 131. Senate Bill 131 by Senators Ball and Pelton B. and Representatives Woodrow and Wood concerning protections against abusive practices in sports betting.

Further discussion. Sooner further discussion and motion is the passage of Senate Bill 131. are there any no votes? Senators, Mr. Minority Leader, Frizzell, Zamora Wilson, Kirkmeyer, Marchman, Sullivan, Bright, Carson, Roberts, Pelton R., Catlin, Liston, Baisley, with a vote of 21 ayes 13 no 0 absent when excused. Senate Bill 131 is passed. Go sponsors. Senators Judah. Amabile.

concerning school board member disqualifying convictions. Senator Benavides. Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 26-166 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote.

Senate Bill 142 by Senators Ball and Kipp and Representative Joseph Gonzalez concerning the development of thermal energy resources. Senator Ball.

Seeing none of the motion is the passage of Senate Bill 142. Are there any no votes? Senators, Zamora Wilson, Baisley, Liston, Pelton R., Carson, Bright, Rich, with a vote of 27 I-7-0-0 absent one excuse, Senate Bill 142 is passed. Most sponsors, Senators Linstead, Amabile, Cutter, Doherty, Roberts, Mullica, Benavidez, Snyder, Exum, please add the president and senator judah as a co-sponsor on 142

reconsideration of senate bill 131 the motions for the reconsideration of senate bill 131 all

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 131. Senate Bill 131 by Senators Ball and Pelton B. and Representatives Woodrow and Wood concerning protections against abusive practices in sports betting.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 131 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move to lay over Senate Bill 134 until Wednesday, April the 29th.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to House Bill 1019. House Bill 1019 by Representatives, Leader, and Bacon and Senators Roberts and Rich concerning mandatory health care coverage for preventative kidney function screening services.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 26-10-19 for final passage.

Mr. Schaffler please read the title of House Bill 1318

Thank you Mr. President I move to lay over House Bill 1318 until Wednesday April 29th

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of general orders. Second reading of bills.

The committee will come to order and the coat rule is relaxed for everyone in the chamber.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Senate to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 162. The motion is to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 162. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it. We will proceed out of order. Will the clerk please read the title of Senate Bill 162.

Senator Frizzell.

Senator Mullica.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Schoffler, will you please read the title of Senate Bill 23? Senate Bill 23 by Senators Kolker and Kirkmeyer and Representatives Hammer concerning the financing of public schools.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 23 and the Appropriations Committee Report, Education Committee Report, sorry, and the Appropriations Committee Report. All of them. All of them. To the Education Committee Report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've added a number of technical amendments as requested by the Department of Education, nothing that really impacts the overall school finance authority that we have, things that just need to be done and that's it the motion is the adoption of the education committee report to senate bill 23 all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed no the ayes have it the education committee report is adopted to the appropriations committee report senator appropriations please senator thank you again just moving through appropriations because we're dealing with school finance AND SCHOOL FUNDING FORMULA SO URGING I VOTE. THE MOTION IS THE ADOPTION OF THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT IS ADOPTED TO THE BILL.

THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GET INTO THE BILL I DO HAVE ONE AMENDMENT I NEED TO ADD TO THE BILL. THERE IS AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.

Senator Kolker.

Mr. Chair members this is the School Finance Act and it's not it doesn't have as much fanfare this year or it has for the last couple of years but just to let you know first of all that it increases the statewide base per pupil funding for the 2627 budget year by two hundred and seventeen dollars and thirty cents to account for inflation It sets a new statewide base per people funding amount for the 26 budget year at And it sets the total program funding for 26 budget year at $10,209,589,888. And it doesn't say the pennies, so sorry, but that's what it does. Members, this implements current law. We kept the deal that was cut last year. We didn't make changes to it. We fully funded as required under the Constitution. We did not cut K-12 funding. In fact, the stability and predictability of the funding is what was praised in committee. We had the associations who said things like, wow, it's a clean school finance act and they're in support, that it's clear value of protecting K-12 education and that they're thankful that we honored the deals that were made in the last couple of years. So with that, I would ask for an aye vote. This is, again, we are fully funding K-12 education as required under the Constitution. Gosh, we figured out how to do it in our budget. We prioritized it thanks to the Kids Matter Fund that was created last year by myself and the good senator to the right of me. And so it's a great bill. Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Worked hard on this bill, was the first bill I introduced this year because we wanted to make education a priority. We wanted K-12 education to be at the forefront of what we were looking at with balancing our budget, with the shortfalls that we had, make sure that we knew where we wanted to be. Because we have short-changed education, K-12 education, so many times in the past. We did get rid of the BES factor, and we wanted to keep that in the past and not bring that back. So by putting the school finance formula out first, it made us make sure that we prioritized it. I thank the JBC for their work in prioritizing it and making sure that we were not balancing our budget on the backs of our students. And just want to say that appreciation for my co-prime and for all the members of the JBC. You know, our budget has been balanced by cutting school funding below levels required by Amendment 23 of our state constitution in the past. We're not doing it this year. We've approached it as a priority. We are adjusting it for inflation this year. Current law, no shenanigans. There's nothing in this bill that really anybody should be worried about that was brought up at the last minute. We're not doing that. We took control of the bill, we took control of the financing, making sure those shenanigans stayed away from it this year. We're in dire need of additional funding for our K-3 classrooms to ensure early intervention in literacy and math. We do have declining enrollment, but we have increases in high-need special education require higher-cost individualized support. As students progress through upper elementary and middle school, classes become larger. first-hand experience with my own eighth grader with less time available for each student leads to gaps which are challenging to resolve. Our teachers and our school staff they work tirelessly. We've all heard about how we are underfunding education appropriately. We've increased that funding with Kids Matter. We've increased that funding with Amendment 23. It doesn't mean we have everything we need. So it's always a good time to prioritize public education, and our students and educators deserve adequate, reliable funding, and legislators who follow through on the promises we've made to voters to fully implement the new school finance formula and to fully fund our schools as soon as we can. I encourage an aye vote on this, and thank you for your time. The motion is the adoption of Senate Bill 23. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 23 is adopted.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Senate proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 93. The majority leader will be credited $1, and we will proceed out of order for consideration of Senate Bill 93. If the Senate agrees to it, the motion is to proceed out of order. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. We'll proceed out of order for Senate Bill 93.

Senator Sullivan.

Mr. Shockley, we plead to read L-005. Amendment L-005.

I move amendment L005 to Senate Bill 93 and ask for an aye vote. So move to the amendment. And in this one here this is from discussions that we had in the interim and this is removing special districts from the bill And with that, I ask for an aye vote. The motion is the adoption of L-005 to Senate Bill 93. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L-005 is adopted. To the bill, Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill here requires governmental entities to receive signed declarations regarding workers' compensation coverage or rejection of coverage for all applicants, general contractors, and some subcontractors before issuing a building or construction permit or license. We already have, well, it's already unlawful to not cover workers with workers' compensation insurance. This unlawful behavior is often not caught until after someone gets hurt. That's why we need implementation of a bill like this. And with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, I sit on the business affairs and labor and technology, We heard this several weeks ago, and I rise in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 93. And let me kind of tell you why. There's more than one reason. This bill transfers a core state regulatory responsibility for workers' compensation onto local governments without funding, without training, and without any recognition that this work falls for outside the mission of municipal permitting for office, resulting in delayed permits and higher construction costs. The bill requirements are not incidental administrative tasks. They are substantive enforcement functions that require legal expertise, specialized training, an ongoing administrative capacity that municipalities are not equipped to do. The Good Center from Centennial mentioned that with this amendment that it takes out the special districts, which is good because otherwise they too would be opposed to the bill. But let me tell you also who is opposed to the bill. The Colorado HBA, the Home Builders Association, they're opposed to this bill. the Association of General Contractors, they're opposed to this bill. C3, the Colorado Municipal League, which represents 270 communities, which is virtually all of our communities in the state of Colorado. Pikes Peak Regional Building Department is opposed to this bill. And Mr. Paul Toriello, who's the director of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, he came and testified against the bill. This bill, if it's passed, bypasses the structure entirely, forcing all 270 municipalities to take on verification, investigation, and enforcement functions that they were never designed to perform. The result of this will be delayed permits, higher construction costs, and municipalities expanded to legal liability for enforcement decisions that are outside their expertise. I would respectfully ask for a no vote on Senate Bill 93. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you Mr Chairman And I don sit on that committee so I wasn in committee but I do have I appreciate maybe where they trying to go with this bill but in the fiscal note on page three under local government This bill will increase costs for local governments to conduct additional reviews of contractors prior to issuing licenses and permits and to address any increase in complaints. It may decrease municipal permit revenue and sales and use tax by limiting the ability to issue permits discouraging applicants for permits. These local costs are expected to be substantial and will vary depending on construction activity. There's been a lot of talk over the last year about unfunded mandates. And, you know, when the state puts on an unfunded mandate, the counties aren't actually even required to do this. So while it's an unfunded mandate, and I'd probably encourage them not to since state law doesn't require them to, but I do still oppose this bill because we should have looked at that and made sure that the local governments were compensated. I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the comments there. That's why we came out with Amendment L-004 to take those costs away from local government. That's why it was able to have a zero fiscal note moving forward, and that's why the Appropriations Committee was able to move it forward. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of this bill. I think this is a creative way to get to employers who are using employees and not covering them under workers' comp. This has been a continuing problem, especially on construction sites with people that are misclassified in the work that they do. And I understand that there are people that are saying it's a lot of work for local governments, But really, having been a director of a construction company for over 30 years, what's required is a certification that all employees that work for the company will be under workers' comp, which is basically pinnacle for most, and an exemption form because oftentimes construction companies, they don't put their officers, their key employees under it. So this is a paperwork thing to guarantee before a permit is issued and there's problems on the work site. And these permits, it's only for permits over a million dollars. So it's not talking about small construction projects under that. So I think it's a good bill that gets to the root of the issue and may be able to protect some employees long term down the road. I'm in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Aye.

No The ayes have it Senate Bill 93 is adopted Mr Majority Leader

The motion is to proceed out of order for consideration of Senate Bill 155. All those in favor say aye.

You can't vote twice, Mr. Minority Leader, and the ayes have it. We'll proceed out of order for consideration of Senate Bill 155.

Senator Mullica.

To the Finance Committee report.

Motion is the adoption of the Finance Committee Report on Senate Bill 155.

All those opposed, no.

The Finance Committee Report is adopted to the bill. There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Marchman.

To the amendment.

So what this does is it just adds some information, some data on the Strength in Homes program and information about the wildfire study in the ledge deck, just saying that this has worked in other states. And then it removes references to any insurer penalties. We had removed fines previously in the bill, and this was just kind of a cleanup. It removes a provision related to lowering the fee. if the insurer becomes insolvent. So if a carrier becomes insolvent, existing statutes would apply and prohibit them from making the payment. And then it also adds a component to add reporting to the workforce development grants that will be going out by the board. So I'd ask for an aye vote.

All those in favor say aye. Aye.

The ayes have it.

Mr. Schauffele, will you please read L11? Amendment L11.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L11.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion is the adoption of L11 to Semple 135. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L11 is adopted. There is another amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So moved.

Amendment L-10 clarifies grant program money as a fee revenue, also clarifies money generated in the form of fee revenue allocated to the administrative needs, development, necessary workforce, or installation and certification of resilient roofing systems shall not exceed 3%. and make sure that 90% of the dollars that are being generated are going to replace hardened roofs rather than other places. And so it asks for a yes vote.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

No.

That's a good one. That's a good one, yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and just really excited to be bringing this bill this year. Last year there was work that was done, and it was certainly yeoman's work on a House bill that made it over here and had a bit of a demise in the Senate, and it was largely because there was a fee that was associated with not having the appropriate class 4 roof, and the fee was going to go on the people who were probably trying to save up for the roofs. And so that was a challenge. And so my colleague did a lot of work on this, and the industry and coalition really came together to make sure that there are no fees on property owners, on people who are already struggling just to pay their bills. I do just want to speak a little bit about why this is a statewide concern. Hail and wind is a bigger threat to our insurance industry than is wildfire. We've had a couple of huge storms that don't last very long, but they cause huge damage, maybe even more so than the Marshall Fire in one hailstorm in August of 2024. And so it's something that we're constantly dealing with. And that gets passed on to ratepayers across the state. So these are people, you know, in El Paso County where they may not have as much hail and wind as they have up in Sterling or in Loveland where I live. they're still paying about half of their insurance rate is because of wind and hail. So I just applaud those who've worked on this bill, all the stakeholders, everyone who's come together for this. I am really excited to see how this is going to play out. I want to flag for folks that this is not an immediate fix. This has happened in other states, Mississippi and Alabama, and it happens over the course of a couple of years that we should start to see the insurance go down across Colorado. So that's the vision. That's the goal. I appreciate your consideration of this policy. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my co-sponsor from Loveland for those words. I also want to take this opportunity to thank sponsors from last year Senator Mobillet and Senator Snyder specifically here in our chamber who have worked on this issue And unfortunately I think you know the two of us couldn get there in support of a bill last year But I think we can agree that we wouldn't be standing here today talking about this without the work that they did, even if it was a place that we couldn't get in support of. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the industry who, you know, came in a sincere way to the table with the Division of Insurance to really try to, I think, solve what is a real problem. One of the issues I had last year with the legislation is that this idea that we're going to increase the cost on homeowners to try to come up with a grant program. We specifically in this bill work to address that. We specifically have language in the bill saying that this fee is not going to be a direct surcharge on consumers, on homeowners. And we worked with the industry, and the industry is all agreeing, publicly stating that this bill is going to lower the cost of homeowners insurance. That's a real problem all over in our districts. I'm sure that if you've had a town hall, I'm sure if you've knocked on any doors, you've heard about it, that homeowners insurance is becoming more and more unaffordable. and that people cannot afford it. And one of the driving forces for that is hail. And there's some of our communities that we represent in this room, upwards of 50 to 60% of the cost of your homeowner's insurance is due to hail. What this bill does is it creates a grant program to try to get hardened roofs on homes. So you can go and your roof needs replaced, and let's say it's $10,000 for a normal shingle roof. Most people, you know, they don't have a lot of money sitting around, so they go and they pay $10,000 for a normal shingle roof. Well, maybe it's $15,000 to get a hardened roof. We know that if you can get a hardened roof, that you're not going to have to replace that roof as often. We know that when you don't have to replace the roof as often, the insurance isn't as expensive. And so what this bill does is this bill has these pool of funds to try to help cover that delta so that when that homeowner has to go replace their roof, that they have an option to get that hardened roof on and not have to pay more than if they were just going to get a normal shingle roof on. There's also components in the bill that has workforce development to make sure that our roofing industry is trained on how to install these roofs. There's also a component on the bill that's going to study reinsurance for wildfires. We've heard from our mountain communities that we want to really start looking at that. And so we've given the space to have that conversation. But I want to be clear, what this bill is doing is it's bringing down the cost of homeowners insurance. It's addressing the number one cause of homeowners insurance rising. And you can go talk to folks in Alabama who've implemented a similar program that is putting out $1 million a year, and they're seeing a huge return on that. We're looking at putting out 20 times that in a year. And so I think that we have a real potential here to address what I think is a real issue in our state that impacts all of our districts. I'm excited to bring I'm excited to be on this bill with Senator Marchman Thank you for everyone who's worked on it and I would ask for a yes vote

By referring to other members by name Minority

Thank you, Mr. Chair. the motion is the adoption of senate bill 155 all those in favor say aye

mr majority layer thank you mr chair i move the senate proceed out of order to take up senate bill

in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed no. The ayes have it will proceed out of order for

distribution of single-use food serviceware. Senator Cutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move

report. So thank you. In Health and Human Services, we did a few amendments to clarify for folks. We

The motion is the adoption of the Health and Human Services Committee Report to sample 146.

All opposed, no.

The committee report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Cutter.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Senator Cutter.

Sandra Kirkmeyer

I think that's how the menu item works.

when we say that it's okay, that it doesn't apply to the following, even though it's encouraged to all food establishments to comply with this. And one of those is Mills is provided in part of a social service program where we say in the ledge deck that, you know what, the impacts of single-use plastic items constitute an environmental justice issues for these certain communities that are disproportionately burdened. And those communities include those with higher portions of low-income households. So why would we allow it to do that? Why would we allow anyone to do it? Don't they count? I mean, why would that be okay that you can give it, you can give away as many as you want without asking or confirming or them asking for a social service program that is serving more vulnerable populations, such as school children, income eligible households, individuals experience homelessness, or elderly individuals? Doesn't really seem to be, I mean, I'm thinking there's some irony here with regard to this. You know, using language that signifies one thing, but then in the bill saying two different things, especially when you use it in the leg deck, the legislative declaration. You know, there's another thing here that says the section doesn't apply to the following. Single-use food service intended to prevent spills. I just want to say thank you. But this is a little confusing. But the reason I'm going to say thank you is because, remember, I know you all say, you all know I talk about one of my grandsons on a very regular time, but I have six grandsons, so thank you for not including intended to prevent spills. But it is a little confusing when I read in the definition that it could include trays. So is the tray that they put all the drinks on, you know, that cardboard tray, if it was plastic, you could use it or you couldn't use it? It's just confusing how this is written. So who's supposed to know? But the most confusing part and the most irony part here is when you start getting back to the very last page of the bill. And I looked. I didn't see where there was an amendment on these sections on page 8 where it talks about enforcement. And it says, on or before January 1, 2027, the department shall establish a page on the department's public website, so that's the Department of Public Health and Environment, that includes a description of the requirements of this section and the enforcement mechanism set forth in section 2517-507. So I happened to notice the same similar language in the fiscal note, And so I went and looked up 25, 17, 507, and yes, it's pretty much stated in the fiscal note. But in the fiscal note here what happens Here the enforcement It on local governments So local governments you know municipalities and counties can can may they don have to but they may enforce it. But they don't have to enforce it. So we're putting something into law to encourage, I guess, but actually to make it look like these are shells that you have to ask. and if you don't ask, the local government may enforce a violation of this part. I'm not sure how they're going to do that, but they could do it. And it's against a store or retail food establishment that is located within the boundaries of the local government in the manner that the local government chooses. Now, remember, there are municipalities and there are counties. So municipalities get to enforce this, maybe, if they want to. I don't know how they're going to do that. I guess maybe they could walk up to, they could put an ordinance in place, and then I guess they could go to all their fast food restaurants or their food establishments and ask for, or not ask for anything, and see if they get asked, and then I guess that would be a violation. I don't know why they would do it, but I guess that would be how they do it. But municipalities get to do it in a manner that the local government chooses, which also means fines. They get to put the fine on that they want. Now, if you're a county, however, so this is not fair. If you're a county, you get to enforce the violation against the store or retail food establishment located in the unincorporated boundaries of the county. You may seek injunctive relief against the store, and you may assess the following civil penalties against the store or retail food establishment. Up to $500 on the second violation. $500 if you give out one packet of soy sauce too much. $500. $500 if you give out too many packages of utensils, if they're not single service. and on the third violation it could be a thousand dollars. My gosh those fines are more than the fine that that small town up in Will County is charging for people who speed carelessly on the county highway that I helped get built up there. Those fines are only 350 bucks but if you give out too much, too much plastic utensils or napkins or anything plastic that's in these definitions, you could be fined. Your retail establishment could be fined because, I don't know, maybe that young kid like, you know, me when I was 16 years old didn't even think to go ask. Didn't know I was supposed to. Maybe I'm tired, maybe I just don't care and I'm not gonna ask and it could be the second violation and all of a sudden that retail establishment is getting charged $500. If it's the third violation they could be charged up to a thousand bucks. That's a lot of money to be fined. So I I don't know if someone's going to lose their job over that or not, but that's a lot. So anyways, there's just a lot in this bill that, I mean, I get it. We're trying to stop pollution. I think that's a good idea. But I think the way we're going about it here is just not the way to go about it. And then I read through the legislative declaration. And I know, I don't know if everyone reads through legislative declarations all the time, but things, there are some, sometimes that things catch my eye. And in this case, it was right pretty much in the beginning. You know, the legislative declaration always starts off the same way where it says, the General Assembly finds, determines, and declares. We declare that. That's in the first paragraph. Second paragraph, so start thinking about this. The General Assembly finds, determines, and declares that customers are increasingly frustrated with the amount of single-use items they receive with food service orders. I'm just going to challenge that statement in the legislative declaration. I'm not frustrated by it. I haven't heard anybody who is frustrated by it. I haven't certainly heard any of my grandsons who are with me when we frequent these fast food places. They're not frustrated by it. In fact, they ask for more all the time. Or they go up and get more. Or they just want a bunch. Or they know they need to take it home. Anyways, so if you ask for more, I mean, who's frustrated? I just have not heard that. So with that, I have an amendment.

Amendment L006. Amendment printed bill, page 2, strike lines 11 through 13. read letters of seating paragraphs accordingly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L006.

Amendment L006 is pretty simple. It just removes lines 11 through 13 in the legislative declaration, and they're the lines that I just read, that customers are increasingly frustrated with the amount of single-use items they receive with food service orders. I don't believe that to be correct. I don't know where that came from. I have never heard anyone say that. It seems like we're trying to put, you know, words in people's mouths and basically presume that they're frustrated because they maybe get, I don't know, a couple of single-use items and they only need one. I'm sure most people use those. A lot of people use those when they're going someplace and they're taking food with them and they want to be able to use those as, you know, their utensils. A lot of, I know, like with the case of my daughter, she puts them in her children's lunch pack so that they know that they are eating off of clean utensils. Many individuals prefer to rely on single-use utensils. For example, think college students who may not have access to personal silverware. Again, please don't go over to the Joint Budget Committee because there's a whole drawer full of utensils, plastic utensils in the drawer. And, yes, I use them. And I'm thankful that people brought them because then I don't have to wash a fork or a spoon or something at the JBC because I may not have time or I may be taking the food with me someplace. So they're all over there. Many individuals prefer that. Office employees, like all of us over at the Joint Budget Committee, and I bet even here, there are people who have these single-use utensils in their drawers, in their desks someplace. but office employees who use them with packed lunches, parents who provide them for children who may not be reliably keep track of reusable utensils at school, or they want to make sure that they have their own specific utensils So they don't get all those germs at the school But anyways the amendment is very simple. It just says, you know, we shouldn't be just presuming that customers are increasingly frustrated We shouldn't be putting things. I don't believe into ledge decks where we just presume that we think what everybody is thinking especially when I don know that I ever heard anyone say and I sure there have been some people but I haven heard anyone say that customers that they are increasingly frustrated with the amount of single items they receive with food service orders Most people I know think it's a great idea. They like to take home the extra condiment packages. They like to take home the extra utensils, and they use them in other places. It's not like throughout the bill that there weren't exceptions made throughout this bill for different places determining which who gets to use these things and who can have this and who doesn't have to say you know how geez how many how many Taco Bell packets do you need how many sauce packets do you and do you need the fire or do you need the hot or do you want the mild I mean what are they supposed to do I mean do they have to be that specific I just don't know but I am asking for an aye vote on this amendment and again it just takes out the part that says customers are increasingly frustrated I don't think we should presume that customers are increasingly frustrated. I think most people like their condiments, like the single-use utility utensils that they get to take home and use in other places, and they're very thankful for it. So ask for an aye vote on Amendment 6. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no problem with this amendment. That's fine. I don't think it substantively does anything to the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the lively discussion that we're having over the fast food industry. or if there's any industry that has suffered here over the last few years, it is the restaurant industry. I shouldn't say just the fast food industry. Lord knows that, like I say, over the last several years, what the restaurant industry, whether it's fast food or otherwise, what's going on, just to give you some idea of why it's tough in the restaurant industry, I'll just give you some examples, is that over the last two years we've had the paid sick leave, which was Senate Bill 2205, which has cost restaurants up to $8,000 or more per employee. We've had the Family Medical Leave Act, which was Proposition 118, which costs restaurants anywhere from $2,000 to $3,500. We've had the Wage Enforcement Act. We've had the Utility Clean Bill rate increase. We had all kinds of legislation that has impacted the restaurant industry. And I can appreciate where the good senator from Jefferson County is coming from. You know, I believe in the adage of waste not, want not. And I know when I go to a restaurant, particularly a fast food, you know, a lot of times if you notice the employees are trained to give out the various packets, whether it's ketchup or taco sauce or whatever it may be. They'll automatically sometimes, it varies from restaurant to restaurant, they'll throw in a handful of napkins, the plastic, the plastic forks, whatever it may be. I think they're trained to do that. Now then the management I noticed though as you go to some of the fast food restaurants they don't necessarily put the plastic out there. You have to ask for it time and time again, which is understandable, particularly on the drive-up. but certainly I would say that we don't need to have the ketchup cops that are going to stand there and ask that you get three packets of ketchup. That's all you get is three and how dare you ask for four or else we're going to turn you in to the ketchup cops and also there's the napkin nannies, you know, that, you know, you say, well, can I have two napkins? Well, no, we've got to check with management to see how many napkins that you can get. So, you know, I just don't believe that we need the heavy hand of government telling the restauranteurs what to do. You know, they know better than anybody that they, you know, want to run a clean business and that they want to be environmentally correct. Speaking for myself, just so you know, is I keep my plastic forks. I think I would earn an environmental A plus because I don't throw my plastic forks away. I keep them. I use them. The napkins I use until they're practically worn out. But with that in mind, there are different types of restaurants that deserve an exemption. And with that, I do have an amendment in mind. I'll give it to the good senator from Jefferson County. There is an amendment. It's not at the desk, but there is an amendment. It's coming. It's coming, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. There we go. Now there's an amendment at the desk.

Amendment L-9.

To the amendment.

so I would dispute that this is an unnecessary burden, and I would ask for your no vote.

The motion is the adoption of L-009 to Senate Bill 146. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. Aye. The no's have it. L-9 is lost. Senator Bright.

Was that what you said? The police? The which police? The packaging police are going to come and implement a fine. Okay. All right. I'm going to remember that.

there is an amendment at the desk Mr. Schuffler you please read L10

thank you Mr. Chair I move amendment L10 to Senate Bill 146

thank you Mr. Chair so this would exempt food service providers who don't speak English and may stumble into a mistake and be fined as a result. I just want to make sure that those folks are considered in this process, and I don't want them to inadvertently be subject to a fine as a result of mistaking a yes for a no, or I want three instead of two, or whatever that is. And so I would encourage an aye vote on Amendment L-10.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I request a no vote on Amendment L-10.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again concerns about the ability to be compliant with this bill A lot of our food that consumed in different areas requires plastic cutlery plastic silverware And it's not really practicable to bring metal, steel, whatever you want to make your forks and knives and spoons out of. It's not really practical to bring them and then turn around and wash them and make them ready to go. And some of those areas where those things are done predominantly are farmers markets, concerts, festivals, cultural events where food establishments operate. And I can see potential mistakes here. I can see people tripping into being subject to a fine or a penalty inadvertently. You know, you're looking at a group of kids who are there to eat Sundays, and you're not quite sure how many kids are there, and you hand out the Sundays, and some of them have two, and some of them have one, and you hand them an appropriate number to cover everybody to make sure everybody has one, and yet you make a mistake and accidentally over-serve a plastic fork or spoon. And so I feel like we need to make this bill better by acknowledging the presence of those spaces where those kind of things are done.

Amendment L-008.

So move to the amendment.

Senator Cutter.

The motion is the adoption of L-008. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. Noes have it. L8 is lost. To the bill, Senator Frizzell.

especially if it's a nicer place you're getting takeout from, where they have a nice quality paper napkin, and maybe they put that really little sticker thing on it so that everything stays together nice and tidy because I'm a little OCD from that perspective. So I appreciate that extra effort. I appreciate having all the utensils that I need to eat my takeout meal. God knows we eat enough takeout meals here. And so, members, with that, I have an amendment. There's an amendment at the dot. Mr. Shoffler, will you please read L7?

Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L007 to Senate Bill 146. To amendment number 7. All right. So as previously described, I read this section. It was on page 6, line 6 through 9, that talks about it's prohibiting, actually, a retail food establishment or third-party food delivery service. You cannot do that anymore. So no more nice napkins packaging the plastic ware, or sometimes it's bamboo. I kind of like the bamboo stuff. I think so. Not all places do that, but I appreciate that extra effort. The first time I ever had the bamboo was I was actually in London, and I thought this is an amazing thing. Leave it to the London restaurant. Leave it to the, yeah. It was an Indian restaurant in London. And I did not have to ask for my serviceware. But that said, I really think that we should be able to have, that food establishments, retail food establishments, or delivery services should have the opportunity to package the utensils with the napkin and I fundamentally disagree with the prohibition of it I ask for your aye vote on this important amendment Senator Cutter Members I ask for a no vote on this amendment. The motion is... A division has been requested... Respectfully. Respectfully.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say this is a very knife debate we're having here. Lots of people who clearly give a fork about this bill, but I do hope that we wrap it up spoon.

Thank you, Taylor. one thing I have always appreciated in the eight years now that I have worked with my good colleague from Jefferson County is that she has been on a crusade for zero waste and I want you to think about the drawers that you might have at home that are filled with the stuff that people give you because it's just easy. But why? We don't need all the stuff. I really am a big fan of this bill and I'm excited to support it. And I hope all of you will too because it is just the right thing to do. We have recycled buckets in the chamber. People don't put paper in them. Come on, folks. It is not that hard to do a little bit so that we can have a better, cleaner planet. Thank you.

Aye. Aye.

No.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Wednesday, April the 29th.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the committee rise and report.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. Your committee of the whole has met and had a number of bills under consideration. Mr. Schaffer, will you please read the report?

Senate Bill 155 as amended. Senate Bill 146 as amended. Passed in second reading. Order engrossed and placed in the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senate Bill 70. House Bill 1210. House Bill 1113. House Bill 1313. Laid over until April 29, 2026. Retaining their place in the calendar. Senator Hamilton.

Move for the adoption of the report.

Senate Bill 162 as amended. 23 as amended. 93 as amended. 155 as amended. 146 as amended. Passed second reading. Order of gross place. Account of third reading and end. Final passage. Senate Bill 70. House Bill 1210, 1113, and 1313. Later, we'll take 429, 2026, 10 and place on the calendar.

Thank you, Mr. President. Having voted on the prevailing side, I move for the reconsideration of Senate Bill 166.

Senate Bill 166 by Senators Benavidez and Kip and Representative Goldstein concerning a school board member disqualifying convictions.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Senate Bill 126 be approved on third reading and final passage.

Rich, Helton B, Bazley, Bright, Liston, Zamora Wilson, Carson, Helton R, Catlin,

Members of the Colorado Brain Injury Trust Fund Board, effective July 1st, 2025 for terms

on consideration of Governor's Appointment Consent Calendar,

Trust Fund Board. Any discussion? Seeing none of the motion is the confirmation of the appointments on the consent calendar. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34 ayes, 0, noes, 0, absent, and when excused, those appointments are confirmed. Signing of bills. The President has signed House Bill 1238, 1244, 1257, 1259, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1303, 1305, 1311. Did I? That's crazy. Ah, yes, right. Announcements. Senator Kipp.

Very good. Senator Amabile.

Very good. Senator Wallace.

Very good. Senator Mullica.

Very good. Senator Cutter.

Very good. And... Senator Henriksen.

Very good Mr Minority Leader Thank you Mr President Request a moment of personal privilege Granted Thank you Mr President Just wanted to take the opportunity to recognize a couple of friends of mine from the San Luis Valley Steve and Martin It not Steve

Senator

Give her the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed note. The aye and the no, but the aye has it. That's correct. And the funeral recess until 1 p.m. today.