House Finance [Apr 13, 2026]

Representatives Brooks. Present.

Garcia. Here.

Hartsook. Here. Marshall. Here. Soper. Excused. Stewart. Here. Zokar. Excused. Woodrow. Excused. Madam Chair. I am here. All right. We have a sponsor for the bill today. Maybe we'll be joined by the other sponsors soon. Rep Carter, would you like to tell us about Senate Bill 113?

That being said, one second. All right.

Are they substantial to the bill?

You could just talk about it a little briefly just so we have some questions about it.

all right well let's see if anyone has any questions for you rep hearts up

up Carter. And just to be clear, what happens is we are removing that layer, but it still will come underneath the BHA, so we still will have to fund it, but... I'm sorry? Sorry. We are removing that layer of bureaucracy, but we're still going to have to fund it eventually. It'll be under BHA, but somebody inside of BHA will actually have to

aren't we already paying through it isn't the bha already paying through it so it's already being funded then it's being passed to the third party so it would seem like it'd be a net wash if we're eliminating that bureaucracy we actually i would think we'd be saving money because if bha is going to take it over now itself they don't have to pay any of that overhead cost for the third party That's what I'm trying to reconcile on the fiscal note.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Understood, and I'm going to have to make sure you ask that question. Specifically I just know that in the original fiscal note it is a zero because we haven there is no there is the first year there a net zero And so regarding the additional years I think that going to be because the BHA will actually have to be active But I'll actually allow my counterpart to internet.

I have a quick comment and then a question. So on page two, on the fiscal note, you'll notice that we are shifting, as per the bill, from the general fund into a cash fund. And so that does the balance of since we're no longer having to pay out of our general fund, but now it's the entities themselves that are going to have to cover the cost of the licensing. That's where the cash fund is coming into play. My question here, and this is just curiosity, and if I'm overstepping what the process is for our focus of the Finance Committee, I guess I'm just curious on why is the current system not working?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Rep. Garcia, for the explanation for Representative Hartzik. That being said, what was happening specifically, these operators, they would buy – they'd get a house. They'd get licensed by the state, and they were pretty much unregulated. So what we saw were operators were double billing Medicaid on behalf of the clients. they were threatening the clients as in if if you don't pay you'll get kicked out of this operation and bha was having difficulty reining in the operators who were bad actors and so this they this is why it came out i mean i can only speak on the actors that i i interact with but some of the stories that we were hearing were horrific because it was you guys understand this is the most vulnerable population, one of the most vulnerable populations that we have, and they were being exploited by individuals running recovery homes. And the VHA said, we don't have the ability to regulate them other than calling the police. Why don't you just give us a direct, just take out that bureaucracy and allow us to regulate them directly? And that's why.

Reb Carter Do you want to do amendments And this is the amendment I spoke regarding specifically allowing probation placement referrals I believe the bill had already allowed that, but some of our partners and our stakeholders wanted to make sure it was inside the bill. Wanted to make sure it was inside the bill, and that's the only reason. There also was a technical amendment that was included. That was going to be L14, but that technical amendment is included in L15.

Moved by Rep. Camacho, seconded by Rep. Stewart.

No, I'm sure

Once again, I do not appear in this committee at all We have been trained to not put any type of money into any of our bills So I think this might be my first time in front of you since last year It's a great bill The whole point of it is to protect the vulnerable community because they were under attack.

I move Senate Bill 26113 to the Committee on Appropriations as amended to the Committee on Appropriations.

I have a no.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

excused. Stewart. Yes.

Yes.

How many freaking committees do you think go to? That bad. No, I'm just mad. I've got another committee. How many committees does this thing have to go to? We have the sponsors on 144. I just messaged. I'll have another call in a minute.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Before we start, I just wanted to note that this bill is 107 pages, but it has no fiscal note. So that in and of itself should really make you think about pushing this bill through. But you may want more of an explanation, so I'll do that for you. Today we are presenting Senate Bill 26144. This is a technical but essential bill to ensure Colorado's tax lien and treasurer's deed system is constitutional, consistent, and workable for counties across the state. Let me start by why this bill is necessary. In Tyler v. Hennepin, a United States Supreme Court case from 2023, I believe, the court addressed what happens when the government takes property to satisfy a debt. In that case, a homeowner owed roughly $15,000 in property taxes. The county seized and sold her home for $40,000 and kept every dollar over the tax debt. The court held that this violated the Fifth Amendment. The government can collect what it is owed, but it cannot take more than that debt and keep the excess. That surplus equity belongs to the property owner. That ruling directly impacts systems like ours. Colorado took an important first step last year, but as counties began implementing those changes, they identified gaps and inconsistencies that made the process difficult to administer and lived for risk that they were not fully aligned with the Constitution. This bill finishes the work. Before I walk through the sections, it is important to understand the underlying process. When property taxes go unpaid, the county does not immediately take the property. Instead, it sells a tax lien at auction. An investor pays the tax lien and receives a certificate of purchase. The property owner still has time, typically years, to redeem the property by paying back taxes and interest and fees. If the property is not redeemed, the lien holder can apply for a treasurer's deed, which can ultimately transfer ownership of the underlying property. And that is the moment where Tyler matters most, because without proper safeguards, that is where a person could lose not just their property, but all of their equity. The bill builds those safeguards directly into statute, letting me be very clear about the provisions that protect property owners' equity. First, in Section 50, requires public auction before any treasurer's deed can be issued. That auction establishes fair market value through competitive bid and ensures the property is not simply taken for the amount of the tax debt. Section 20 requires that every application for treasurer's deed go through that auction-based process. There's no alternative path that can bypass these protections. Third, Sections 25 through 33 repeal outdated deed statutes that previously created fragmented and conflicting processes, processes, ensuring there is one uniform constitutional framework statewide. And fourth, this bill strengthens notice and due process protections requiring clear notice to property owners and transparent publications of sales so that individuals have meaningful opportunity to redeem their property before any transfer occurs. Taken together, these provisions ensure the government collects what is owed but cannot take more than that. Beyond those protections, the bill also makes the system actually workable. Section 1 updates treasurer fee authority to reflect the modern process and ensure counties can administer auctions and deed proceedings effectively. Sections 2-12 standardized definitions, notice requirements, and how tax lien sales are conducted, creating consistency across counties instead of a patchwork of practices. Sections 13-19 improve operational clarity, ensuring minor technical errors don't invalidate sales, and clearly defining post-sale responsibilities. Sections 34 through 39 modernize how counties manage tax lien certificates and properties Members of the committee this bill does three fundamental things It ensures Colorado complies with the Constitution after the Tyler decision It creates a clear and workable system for counties to follow and it protects property owners by ensuring their equity is not taken unlawfully or unfairly. This is about making sure our tax system is fair, transparent, and legally sound, and we respectfully request your support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think my colleague said about everything you can say about the bill, it's a very technical bill. We are a GS vote. Are there any questions for these bill sponsors about this bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just wondering if this bill is increasing the amount of fees the treasurer may charge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you repeat your question?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Is this bill increasing the dollar amount of fees that the treasurer may charge?

That is not my understanding. The treasurer can only charge fees. I mean, the process, maybe it requires more clarification. Are you talking about the fees that the taxpayer already owes or fees for the process? I hope it's okay.

I am talking about the fees that are starting on the bottom of page three and onto page four. I don't know if that is an increase from the status quo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually don't know. I will leave that to some of the treasurers to talk about that. I know we have a few of them coming. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just wanting to make sure I'm understanding correctly, because there's a list of fees the treasurer is entitled to charge, starting on the bottom of page three. And if those are new fees, that's more what I'm wondering, if there's a dollar amount increase generally on the amount of fees they can charge because we're giving new authority.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We did get a phone-a-friend. And the current fee structure doesn't reflect changes from the Tyler Hennepin decision. So that was not reflected in our stakeholding of this. So this is kind of new to me. So I will defer to treasurers for that technical answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Holly Ryan. I'm a Chief Deputy Public Trustee in Douglas County. I'm here representing Douglas County and the Douglas County Treasurer. We have an amend status. Hopefully everybody got their letters last week that gives you a summary of the bill that I drafted Sorry it 107 pages To answer your question Representative Zokai sorry the fees are not being increased When Tyler v Hennepin was passed under 24 we have a partial statute. Those fees and costs were actually referred to under the PT foreclosure fees under Title 38. All we're doing is moving those fees referenced in the public trustee foreclosure to the treasurer fees under 30-1102. They do remain the same. We are asking that they be increased every two years on an odd year so that they will increase at the same time as the PT fees so the public trustees and the treasurers collect the same fees at the same time. The amend I I have, I've been really struggling with. As I stated, I drafted this legislation, and a paragraph on page 41, lines 23 to 26, was added, and it basically says, although poorly written, that a treasurer, the treasurer's staff, and members of their immediate family can purchase properties at a deed sale. So by statute under 3911, the treasurer, their employees, and their immediate families are not allowed to buy at a tax lien sale. Under the public trustee statutes, the public trustees and our staff are not allowed to purchase at a public trustee sale. But this paragraph, which should be written, the purchase of any property, because we don't sell certificates of options or treasurer's deeds, we sell property. and then we issue a certificate of option and a treasurer's deed, is being exempted under Title 11.5. However, page 41, you're still under the tax lien sale, which is Title 39.11. We have a complete problem with this because 11.5, the way it's drafted, on page 68, lines 3 through 4, say a treasurer acting in their visual capacity must not bid at a public auction held under section 11.5. So we have a conflict. We have a new paragraph that, one, we either need to amend, which I'm leaning more towards just striking, and putting it under 11.5 where it belongs for the treasurer deed sale, but also why are we exempting out at the treasurer deed process that these parties can buy a property but we're exempting and excluding them from having the same right under a tax lien sale or under a public trustee sale. So that's my quandary. That's why we're taking an amend status. I'll leave it to you if you guys want to ask me questions on this when the time comes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon to you and the members of the committee. I'm Irene Josie, Larimer County Treasurer. I'm here today in support of Senate Bill 26144. I want to particularly thank the sponsors and the drafters and publicly thank our colleague, and Brout County Treasurer, Lane Acovetto. This has been a serious and very significant undertaking and we recognize the thoughtful work behind this well and tuned bill At its core this bill is about clarity consistency and accountability In administering one of the most complex sensitive responsibilities at the county level which is delinquent property tax collection, Senate Bill 26-144 streamlines the tax lien sale process, clarifies statutory language, and creates a more uniform framework for treasurer's deed procedures across the state. These updates are not just technical, they are practical improvements that help counties operate more consistently and align with evolving legal standards, including compliance considerations following Tyler B. Hennepin. A key strength of this bill is the standardization of process. It reduces confusion, minimizes delays, and ensures more uniform application throughout all counties. Importantly, this bill does not grant additional authority to treasurers. It simply defines existing responsibilities more clearly. It establishes structured timelines and clarifies procedures, especially when there is more than one lien holder. The bill also updates the fee structure associated with the tax lien sales and treasurer's deeds. It sets clear parameters and allows for periodic adjustments so counties can recover actual administrative costs without placing unnecessary burden on taxpayers. The recent amendments further strengthen the bill by refining timelines and processes, giving treasurers a clear direction while maintaining important safeguards for property owners. That balance is critical. We must protect the due process while ensuring counties can efficiently, fully fulfill their statutory duties. From a practical standpoint, this legislation reduces administrative uncertainty, improves transparency, and increases efficiency for taxpayers. That means clearer communication and more predictable purpose and processes. For counties, this ensures consistent and responsible administration of the law. This is a bipartisan, collaborative effort and thoughtful, well-vetted update to our statutes. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your support on Senate Bill 26-144. I thank you for your time today and I am here for further questions.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and thank you for taking the time for this important matter. My name is Carrie Cooey, and I'm the current president of the Colorado County Treasurers and Public Trustees Association. As you may be aware, House Bill 24-1056 was touted as the best fifth kind to deal with treasurer's deeds after Tyler v. Hennepin addressing a takings case. So because of the improvement of that process, I am here in support of Senate Bill 26-144. We're pleased that this new bill clears up some of the matters that we have encountered in the original bill after having a chance to put that into practice and discovering what areas may need clarification. This bill provides more accurate definitions and more practical solutions to timelines. It deals with obsolete references and still protects the owner's interests. The bill is highly detailed, but has had a lot of time and effort put into it, and it has been fine-tuned into a workable process. Ms. Ryan, Ms. Yacovero, Ms. Josie, and Mr. Berman and others have put tons of thoughtful effort into this bill. There have been hours of meetings, hours of fine-tuning that have gone into it. The bill also reinstates former statute that worked well for the treasurer's deed process and brings it more into alignment with foreclosure process, protecting the homeowner. We ask that you please vote yes on this bill.

Thank you, and thank you to the chair and members of the committee in representing the Colorado County Treasurer's Association as the Routt County Treasurer. My name is Lane Yacvedo, and I am here to urge you in support of this bill. As my colleagues have mentioned, this is a well-vetted practical bill. It just solves issues that are in the current statute and redefines a process that was rather gray when Tyler vs. Hennepin Supreme Court ruling came out, and we made some quick changes to the statute to comply to that. Our goal here was not to change authority or fundamentally change any structure of the law, but just to clarify those processes. We've met with stakeholders. We have put this bill into practice to make sure that we were covering everything as clear as we could. We have implemented feedback from the Attorney General and obviously Tyler vs. Hennepin Supreme court ruling. I want to kind of address the clarity and the intention of the bill that was brought up in a concern. And the bill is intended not to allow county employees to participate in the tax lien process, just as it always has been. But in the goal of establishing a fair market value, we felt like it would be appropriate for county employees to participate in the auction of the actual property as that would, by not allowing that, probably interfere with the market value of the auction. So just clarifying that structure. And back to the fees, we tried to as closely as possible align this with the public trustee foreclosure process. And those fees are also aligned with the public trustees fees. Thank you for your time today and we would appreciate your

Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Chuck Brorman, the El Paso County Treasurer. I'm here on behalf of Colorado County Treasurer's and Public Trustees Association in support of Senate Bill 26-144. Senate Bill 26-144 updates Colorado's property tax lien and tax deed statutes to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tyler v. Hennigan, as many of my colleagues have mentioned, which held that government may collect only taxes, interest, and allowable costs owed and that any remaining equity be returned to the property owner. Colorado laws predate this ruling, and this bill helps make sure that we more firmly, this becomes our constitutional standard. This bill creates a statewide process for identifying, holding, and returning surplus entity after a tax lien sale or a tax lien transfer. It does not change the purpose of the tax lien system, as my colleagues had mentioned. is simply ensure that the system county ministers is constitutional transparent and fair it protects property owners rights while preserving county ability to collect revenue for schools fire districts and essential services The plaintiff's counsel in Tyler V. Hennepin said that Colorado's public prestige foreclosure process is a strong model. This helps to reaffirm that model by harmonizing our terms in our office. It doesn't make sense for the public trustee to call one document something and then the public trustee call a similar document something else. It complies with timelines, notifications, transparency requirements, and forms. This bill is also the product of a broad collaboration of county treasurers, public trustees, counties, attorneys, county clerks, tax lien investors, homeowner advocates, and state agencies. This work has produced a consistent process that counties can implement responsibly and that property owners can understand. As county treasurers, we are committed to administering the tax lien system with accuracy and fairness. This bill provides further statutory framework for us to do that. And it's for this reason and many others that I and the Colorado County Treasurer's Association respectfully urge your support of SB 26-144. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm curious if you can, for the witness at the table, can you restate the page numbers you were referencing earlier?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Reverend Garcia. Is your microphone still on? Sorry about that. Thank you, Madam Chair and Representative Garcia. So on page 41, lines 23 through 26, there's a paragraph four. The paragraph above that says any county official, county employee or member of the immediate family of such person, blah, blah, blah, basically cannot purchase at a tax lien sale. And then paragraph four, I believe, is trying to say that the purchase of any property under 11.5 of this title is exempt, meaning that county officials, county employees, and members of their families can bid under 11.5. In 11.5, however, page 68 is the other page reference, lines three through four. We've already put in under 3A a treasurer not exempting out employees or their families. A treasurer acting their individual capacity must not bid on a public auction held under 11.5. So that's where the conflict is between the two.

Rep Camacho We have no amendments

Wrap Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Key points of this bill ensures constitutional compliance, provides a clearer workable process for counties, restores statutory consistency, and does not expand county authority or increase taxes. And with that, I urge an aye vote.

Wrap Camacho. Thank you, members of the committee. We've heard some good testimony today. I think with all my bills, I'm willing to continue to work on any issues that they maybe have, and we'll go through that process. So while we don't have any amendments today and we may not have any in the future, we're always willing to make a bill better. So with that, this is an important step in making sure that we can continue to comply with our requirements under the law as well as clean up some of the statutes that we have. So for that, I ask for a yes vote.

Brad Brooks. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the commitment to continuing to work on making a bill even better. So I would encourage you to work with Ms. Ryan in our Douglas County office and see if there might be something there that you might be able to bring forward for consideration at a later date.

Rep. Camacho. I move Senate Bill 26-144 to the committee on the whole with a favor or recommendation.

All right. Please poll the committee. Representatives

Camacho. Yes.

Gonzalez. Yes.

Marshall. Yes.

Okay. Yes.

Madam Chair. Yes. And that passes 10 to 0 with one excused. All right. Okay. Let's gear up for our last bill of the afternoon. If we could get representatives Garcia and Velasco. Thank you.

Also, Section 4 and 5 will have prohibited the use of our airport, trains, or bus system for the purpose of deportation. and we do not believe that we should use our state or local resources, we realize that there is more work to be done to ensure our cities and counties are able to comply. So we would urge a yes vote for the amendment. Questions from the committee. Representative Gonzalez.

Representative Garcia.

Representative Gonzalez. And then what, your amendment, which sections were you going to strip out?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we are removing Sections 1, 4, and 5.

Representative Gonzalez, you made dialogue.

Correct.

You're dialoguing.

And then are you bringing some sort of training requirements or is that not part of the bill?

So would that drive a fiscal note or would it be like a private-public partnership or how would that work?

Representative Camacho.

Representative Garcia.

Representative Camacho.

I think at this point, just that one. But again, we are open to ongoing conversations. And if there are other entities that have concerns, we are always happy to talk through them. I do want to just clarify I think any of us who have been in the legislature even for half a session know well that a complaint or a dislike doesn always mean amendment It means a conversation and if it makes sense to bring an amendment without it interfering with the intended purpose of the law then you bring it So we are always happy to have the conversations to see if we can get to a place that reduces heartburn.

I've seen you on this committee numerous times, and when you say you're going to work on amendment, you do, so I'm fine.

I'd like to testify on 1276.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. My name is Owen Brigner, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League, which represents 99% of all towns and cities in our state. CML is currently opposed. We've seen the amendment. I'll take it to the board and see if they have a different position which I've shared with the sponsors. But I'll start by saying that CML understands and appreciates the reasons behind this bill. And as I said, CML is currently opposed to specific sections of the bill. Namely, we were opposed to the transportation section, section 4 and section 5 and the task force provisions. and we did provide feedback about a little, maybe a little over two hours ago, which understandably there won't be an amendment coming to fix those, but those amendments related to Section 2. And I will also say one other part that CML is opposed to is the duplicative reporting requirements with the unsealed federal subpoenas. First, our members would have to report it to the Department of Public Safety within 72 hours, and then also to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. We feel that's duplicative since the members of the Judiciary Committees could just look on the Internet because the Department of Public Safety has to post those. And as noted in the fiscal analysis, that duplicative reporting would add a workload without a clear reason and without funding. And I will say that in Section 2, there's a subsection 1A1 and subsection 1A2 that are duplicative. The second one conflicts with the first one, and the second one is ambiguous. We think that opens up our members to unnecessary risk and a significant risk of being misinterpreted. And then, relatedly, as the conversation between Representative Gonzalez and Representative Garcia mentioned, CML would like to see clarifying language that specifically says the Attorney General has the exclusive authority to bring action and not any other party. And I will just say lastly that CML appreciates the sponsor's willingness to make significant changes to the bill and the progress that has been made. They've committed to meeting with us about the email that I sent two hours ago, which I appreciate greatly, and we look forward to continuing to work with them and the proponents in good faith. So thanks. Happy to answer your questions.

Can you hear me?

All right. Goodness gracious. Great balls of fire. Holy moly. Let's do this. You actually put this bill in print. You're worrying about the CDPHE monitoring cleanliness for an illegal situation, most likely criminal and worrying about civil rights, which if you're illegal, you should be handled by the government, the military and the ICE, not the state. But you did not even want to clean up abortion clinics for women. You put that bill down, but this is OK. And so they could have botched abortions, babies and toilets and all that nasty stuff. You're wanting to penalize, prosecute, law enforcement officers, federal, local, etc., to violate their oath to protect us. We, the legal citizens of America, submit reports to more departments, more paperwork, already requirements. Can't drive this car, can't do this without permission. And what this is, obviously, is sadly, it's an attack on the ice and immigration, and it is an affront to national security. You passed 005, which was a total abomination. And now you want to double down on all the crime rates that are in the top two in the nation. Our state is destroyed. Illegal drivers, no insurance. Crime is up. Everything is up. But we're going to worry about 40,000, 50,000 people who don't belong here and destroy this state even further. You've put fear of judicial actions on the very people that are tasked to protect us, which is our law enforcement people. And you've also went into the airports. You know, I don't need to read you your bill. You already know this. It's kind of the Looney Tunes. Nothing in this bill makes any sense at all by any laws on the books. Ask about all of the parents and families who have lost loved ones because of policies like this. Let's keep these people here. Get them back where they came from. Deport them. They don't belong here. And then you insult the entire state by using the safety clause like a little gimme to hide behind. I wish they would dump the safety clause because nobody should take the voice of the people away. We should have a right to vote on these policies that impact all our communities. They impact everything we have to do. I mean, look, you wanted to make you want to make the state our pimp. You want to let them traffic kids. You're mutilating kids. You're doing all these horrible things in the bills you've made. And here comes another one that is going to be a nightmare for the very people who support us. I'm just so object to all of this. This bill does not help us at all. This bill should go into that thing you call. I don't know what you call the round file, but whatever y'all call it, it needs to go there and stay there. Thank you very much.

Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Brigner, you said that this would increase workload for your members. Could that be seen as maybe an unfunded mandate, or would municipalities have to incur some sort of cost? What would that look like I know they mentioned a training program that could potentially increase workload I just don know how that would work Where do you see this with that specific aspect that you mentioned Mr Brigham Thanks Mr Chair Thanks Representative Gonzalez

Any follow-up, Representative Gonzalez? Representative Soper.

Mr. Bregner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for that answer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for that.

Mr. Bergner.

I'll have Representative Sober.

Yes, Representative Soper, CML is very aware of that law. In fact, I think it came from Governor Hickenlooper. In fact, also, the unfunded mandate portion is in the Constitution.

And I appreciate hearing that it's not only in statute but also in the Constitution. Considering that this is not funded, there's no allocation being made to local governments, would you see local governments as being in a position where they would be able to waive the obligation that's being required here?

This is a conversation that happens internally at CML all the time. I think we've gotten away from, I think the legislature has gotten away from respecting that portion of the Constitution, particularly when it comes to unoffended mandates and that statute. I don't, I'm not sure that CML would encourage our members to ignore the law or waive the requirements associated with it, but I mean the statute and the Constitution are clear, so that's certainly their prerogative. And in the future, where we have, I mean, let's say this conversation is actually listened to for the record by litigation. The Attorney General is having to defend the fact that the General Assembly clearly had noticed that there is a constitutional provision and a statute that if it's not funded, local governments do not have to comply or fulfill that obligation. would you say that in the future as people are listening to this dialogue back and forth that this is adequate and noticed that the General Assembly knew good and well that this constitutional provision existed and we're ignoring that?

Representative Marshall. Thank you Mr. Chair. I think I have four questions if I could just dialogue through them real quick.

So my understanding is the biggest issues are going to be taken care of by amendments. So we're looking at this reporting requirement. If it's a de minimis amount, it wouldn't be a good faith refusal, would it?

Thanks, Representative Marshall. To Representative Soper's question, which I notably did not answer on the modeling of how much this would cost, I don't know what the cost would be to do it, so I would hesitate to answer that question on that front. Yeah, and the hesitation would be because no modeling has been done, and is that possibly because the modeling would cost more than just CCing our Judiciary Committee on what you send to DPS?

Well, again, you're here as the representative of CML.

I'm not sure what the estimate would be.

I'm just trying to understand the scope of how this section 2 applies to your members. Which of your members are receiving subpoenas from federal immigration authorities?

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks, Representative Zokai. I will say, to piggyback on, to go back to what Representative Marshall said, again, they'd also have to create policies and procedures around it. So it may not just be email. They would also have to receive subpoenas and the rest. So I'm not sure all of the costs can be attributed just to CCing someone on email. To your question, Representative Zokai, I don't know how many of our members are receiving federal subpoenas. Follow-up, Representative Zokai.

So is it the position of CML that this would be overly burdensome, but we don't know if they're receiving subpoenas at all? Mr. Brigner.

Representative Zokai, I testified that CML's issues and concerns were almost met by the sponsor's willingness to make changes to the bill. I did not testify that this would be overly burdensome. It was a dialogue that Representative Soper and I had, but I did not testify that way.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess I'm confused as to what the concern with Section 2 is. You're telling me it's not burdensome. What is the concern?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the question, Representative Zokai. I will say we were talking about a different portion of the bill. Section 2 is about clarifying the duplicative nature and the ambiguity of Section 2.1A2 and Section 2.1A1. 1A2 is ambiguous and we think opens municipalities up to liability and risk. What Representative Soper and I were talking about was and Representative Marshall and I were talking about were the duplicative nature of reporting to the Department of Public Safety and to the House Incentive Judiciary Committees.

Not right now.

Yeah, Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Brigner, I know your smaller municipalities. you could argue, right, that this takes away from other rules that they have. Sometimes they don't have the staff, the manpower, the width. I mean, we argue about our departments that need more FTE, so could that be argued that this does cause them fun and mandates because they don't have the manpower? Again, it's more than just CC. They have to process things and take stuff away from them. So what have you heard from them specifically about why they were concerned with that?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Gonzalez. I will say, as I mentioned to Representative Marshall, some of our municipalities meet are part-time. They're not even full-time employees, the town clerks, et cetera. And so, yeah, it would take away from their regular functions to be able to do this. And the bill is very prescriptive in the timelines. They're very tight in turning them around. So it would be up to them on how they'd have to figure that out. Obviously, they'd have to pay them to do it in addition to needing to come up with new policies and procedures to be able to do it. So, yeah, that's what I would say.

Thank you Isaac

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Naomi Andre. I am here representing myself. I am here in support of this bill because I believe that it can do a lot of good for anyone who has been detained, who is being held in a detention center, or who might be held in a detention center. I believe we've all seen a lot of the atrocities that can be committed in detention facilities and I would like none of them to happen to any Coloradans in any capacity. I believe that there are a lot of human rights violations and I think that this bill can help prevent those and it sounds like there has been a lot of thought put into the money that would be going into it and the money that might be coming from it And because of this, I think that any opposition to this bill should be worked through after it has been passed and as it continues through the process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Isaac Beavis, and I am representing myself. I'm here to testify in support of House Bill 26-1276. All people, regardless of immigration status, are not only legally entitled to the rights and freedoms present in our state and federal constitutions, but they also deserve to be treated with basic dignity and human rights. Historically, immigration detention facilities have violated these sacred rights. We have seen this time and time again in national news, such as the so-called Alligator Alcatraz in Florida, and also here in our own state of Colorado. For example, here are just a few recent headlines regarding the Aurora Immigration Detention Center. from the aurora sentinel on march 3rd 2026 says aurora ice immigration detainees face hunger and health woes report fines from the denver 7 from april 1st 2026 says health officials say aurora ice detention facility blocked staff interviews during illness outbreak probe the denver gazette from March 3rd, 2026, says report claims poor living, health, and food conditions at Aurora ICE Detention Center. The Denver Post from March 27th, 2026, says Adams County admonishes ICE Detention Center over poor access communication during public health investigation. These are just a few articles about a single detention center, not more than a 30-minute drive from this very Capitol building over in Aurora, Colorado. I will close with a question to the committee and other members in this room. What will you say to your children and grandchildren when they ask you what you did to stop rising fascism in America? I believe this bill is a step in the right direction towards stopping fascism in its tracks I urge you to vote yes on House Bill 1276

My name is Margaret Rothermel. I am here representing myself as a citizen of Colorado. and I urge you to move this bill forward and I support it fully out of my own values. I feel as a citizen that any organization or agency receiving any form of compensation from the state of Colorado is obligated to produce a transparent report as to its activities and their outcome. I have long been a volunteer for an entirely different department where I am required year by year to keep up with all laws and regulations that affect that department and not only be knowledgeable of them but able to teach them to others. I do this as a volunteer. Also, I feel that every human being is entitled to the respect and dignity of being provided safe and sanitary facilities wherever they are kept for the duration of time. Be it a state-funded preschool or a state prison, they are all entitled to safe and sanitary facilities. facilities. And out of those values, I urge you to move House Bill 1276 forward. Thank

you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Selena Lopez. I'm representing myself and I'm here to support House Bill 1276. This bill is crucial for Coloradans. This bill will protect immigrants, one of our most vulnerable minority groups, as well as help enshrine the basic principle that everyone deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. Everyone. Not just myself and others who happen to have been born in the United States. First, I'd like to highlight the part of the bill concerning our personal data. We need harsher penalties for state workers who give out personal information. It is not enough to penalize the individual themselves. The agency or political subdivision as a whole needs to be penalized. This is an era of constant and invasive private surveillance, and we absolutely

green please state your name floor is yours for three minutes thank you chair my name is jennifer piper i work for the american friends service committee it's a quaker-based peace and justice organization with over 100 years of experience in war-torn areas and in the domestic United States supporting people's human rights. Here in Colorado, I've been working. I first learned about the Aurora Geo Group-run detention center in 2007 when it was set to expand from just 500 beds to 1,500 beds. At that time, we didn't know very much about how detention worked in the United States, and we weren't aware as a movement that there was a very clear profit motive involved in immigrant detention. So almost more than three quarters of the detention facilities that Immigration and Customs Enforcement runs are run by for-profit corporations like the GEO Group. These corporations are publicly traded. They make profit both from our taxpayer dollars to hold people in these facilities, as well as through stock trade. And they perceive the humans in their care as part of that profit model. When you hear about the abuses, I'm sure you ask, like, why is it so bad in these facilities? And the reason is the more you cut costs the bigger your profit is So if you feed people less if you provide less medical care on site if you ignore or treat medical conditions with just ibuprofen, all of that cuts your costs and increases your profits. The federal contracts that the U.S. government makes with these corporations don't have any mechanisms for punishment for conditions that don't meet the standard. So in the contracting, if you don't meet the standard, there's no penalty. There's no profit motive to do better in these facilities. And that is why we are here today to ask the state legislature to ensure that the people who are held in these facilities have enough to eat, have appropriate medical treatment. Over the 20 years that I've been doing this, three people have died. But hundreds more have left these facilities with ongoing mental and medical problems. People have lost limbs in the facility. they've acquired new diagnoses and without intervention without your help to show to demonstrate and to find and to make more difficult and less profitable this business another death will happen soon thank you for your time thank you please hold for questions next

Ms. Loya. Yeah, I think this is already green. My name is Andrea Loya. I work for Casa de Paz, Colorado. We have been in community for 14 years meeting people who are released from the detention center in Aurora. So for over a decade I have heard stories of the people who come out of this detention center. I come before you all today respectfully to urge that you pass 1276. Every single day the women that work at Casa de Paz see the consequences. that affect the real lives when federal agencies carry on with no oversight. The reason that we do not feel like Minneapolis is because ICE knows that in Colorado, the raids on February 5th, 2025 did not work as they expected it to work. They did not work as planned. So they know that they have to violate people's constitutional rights to arrest us. Colorado Springs folks do not have the luxury to walk around like people in Denver. They walk in fear because they are haunted in the middle of the day. Other parts of Colorado already do not feel safe. and they are living and working in this state for decades, actually avoiding any sort of law enforcement because all they have done is work and follow the law. And yet they are still facing detention with no line to get into for a real immigration pathway. I urge that you all read the latest shutdown to your report. It is available online and it is clear why we must ensure that people have human conditions. And that is truly the bare minimum. We need to take action and place some dignity back into detention centers. The only reason why Colorado does not have a death in the last 15 months here in Colorado is because people are being released to Casa de Paz before they meet that. We are seeing the sickest people be released into community. we must ensure that detention does not take another life here and that's just the minimum. No one should be held in conditions that are violating basic standards of health, safety, and public resources should not be being used for those efforts. People are being fed spoiled sale food that is worsening their health conditions and worsening existing ones And Colorado has the responsibility to protect the health and safety of all people in Colorado. Thank you.

Hello. Hi. Members of the committee, thank you for your time today. My name is Ben DiNardo, and I'm here representing myself. I here in support of House Bill 26 and I want to thank the sponsors of this bill for doing what we can in the state of Colorado to fight back against federal overreach As a lifelong Coloradoan and a student of history I deeply concerned about the direction our nation is headed Growing up in Colorado, I was taught that all people are born equal and not to judge others based on circumstances of their birth. However, the federal government is sending masked, unmarked agents into our streets to abduct our neighbors. And unfortunately, there's not much we can do to stop this violence other than to document what we can as citizens. And for those of you who think this violence will stop with our undocumented neighbors, all the federal government need do is say that you are undocumented and there go your rights as well. This bill will help us as a state be able to respond to this federal overreach and ensure that all humans in this state are treated humanely. By setting reasonable common-sense standards to ensure the health and safety of individuals being attained in our state, we can at least provide some accountability and oversight for what the federal government is doing in all of our names. No bill is perfect and while there are those who think this legislation goes too far, others believe this legislation does not go far enough. However, this is the bill that we have before us today. If you have any concern about the actions of the federal government, the federal government that is supposed to represent all of us, is taking with regards to our neighbors, please vote to advance this bill. The only way that we as a nation can move forward is to steadily and terminally work towards a country we can all be proud of, where none Some need fear the violence of the state against their person simply for trying to live a productive life. Thank you, members of the committee, and I implore you to vote for House Bill 26-12-76.

Hello. Thank you to Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Megan Bowden. I'm calling in from Loveland, Colorado, and I'm calling for the committee to advance the bill 1276. Firstly, my stance is that we should not have detention centers in Colorado or anywhere. They're too similar to the atrocious camps of World War II. But since we do have them, we need to uphold safety standards. We've all heard of the horrific encounters and unsafe conditions, and that needs to be stopped The only legitimate arguments against this bill are bureaucratic logistics, which in relation to inhumane treatment is weak So let's be on the right side of history, and let's uphold safety standards and pass HB 26-1276

Hello. Can you guys hear me? We can hear you.

Hello to all those on the committee. My name is Michael May. I'm a graduate student at CSU Fort Collins, and thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm here to represent myself as someone who cares for the health and safety of our immigrant brothers and sisters. As of March 18, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has reported 46 deaths in their custody or detention facilities since the start of the second Trump administration. These are the highest levels of dead seen in over two decades, and deaths in 2026 are on track to meet or exceed the numbers that we saw in 2025. KFF, one of the leading health policy organizations in the country, reported that detention facilities have a history of inadequate compliance with health and safety standards, insufficient health care, shortages in health care staffing, and limited oversight, which may create health risks for those detained. The increased number of people in detention facilities and overcrowding of facilities may further increase health risks, particularly for communicable diseases like measles and people with complex medical conditions. In other words, the federal government has turned detention centers into places where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners like student protesters like Mahmoud Khalil, and members of persecuted minorities are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities. What I have just stated is the verbatim, the Oxford Dictionary's definition of a concentration camp, something that our federal government is hurtling towards in their quest for mass deportations of our neighbors. works. In instances where the federal government is simply allowing these gross violations of health, safety, and human dignity, our state must step in to provide necessary oversight. Requiring health and environmental safety protections are a necessity across this country, but since the federal government has shown an incredible lack of amount of negligence towards the well-being of residents in our country, we must pick up the slack to ensure that these concentration centers do not become death camps. Thank you very much for your time, and I urge the committee to vote yes on this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. May. Are there any questions for

My name is Bennett Rutledge. I am from Centennial, Colorado, and I am speaking for myself. Chair Woodrow and members, good afternoon. The Cherokee and Arapaho Nation has expressed a concern for people with ancestral roots in this soil in encounters with ICE. We also have the Ute Mountain Utes and the Southern Utes here in Colorado as First Nations peoples and there are of course other First Nations peoples centered in other states who come through on a very frequent basis There are also people who are of Mexican descent who were offered the opportunity to become U.S. citizens. Their ancestors were offered the opportunity to become U.S. citizens. as part of the Treaty of Succession associated with the Louisiana Purchase. And later, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the end of the Mexican War. these people are indeed citizens of the United States and they are at risk a young man named Brian Morales just last week was swept up by the ICE and after some bullying and consenting to being taken out of the country. He wound up in Mexico, in a place he could not identify, where he had no idea where to get any sort of assistance. The 14th Amendment tasks the state of Colorado with due process and equal protection of the laws. And under the Tenth Amendment, we have the right to protect our own people here in Colorado. So justice, freedom, due process, and equal protection of laws is worth the quarter million dollars mentioned in the fiscal note. Please vote yes on this. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I move L11.

Representative Garcia. Members, what this amendment does briefly again is it strikes sections two, sections four, and sections five of the bill. Let me ask for an aye vote. Section one, sorry. One, four, and five. Sections one, not two. One, four, and five.

No.

Representative Garcia Thank you members For Your engagement on this bill I want to thank all the witnesses for being here and talking about why this bill is necessary We have worked a lot on this and have made, us as well as our coalition and community members have made, some pretty hard concessions with bringing this amendment forward to take out certain provisions that we believe are necessary to keep individuals safe in this state. However, given our absolutely terrible financial position as a state, we understood that in order to make sure that we can have some protections, we can't really fight for all protections. And so therefore we agreed that striking these sections that cost more for the state to implement was okay to do for now. and the bill now as you see it as you see with the updated fiscal memo is not going to add any cost to the state without equal revenue coming in per the companies having to pay for ensuring that they are treating people humanely and with respect and ask for an aye vote

Closing comments from the committee. Representative Gonzalez.

Any other closing comments?

Any other closing comments?

Second.

I was on the mic. Never represents. All right. Please poll the committee.

Camacho. Yes.

Gonzalez. Respectfully, no.

Marshall. Yes.

Stuart. Respectfully, yes.

To Tom. Me. Mr. Chair. Yes, that passes 7-4. All right, folks, that concludes our business this Monday, April 13th, in-house finance. Pay attention to your calendars and communications from the chair before Thursday when we meet upon adjournment. Until then, we stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.