Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 069

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

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

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the journal Friday, March 20, 2026, be approved as corrected by the Secretary.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege.

Thank you, Mr. President. Today we have members, or I request a moment of personal privilege.

Thank you, Mr. President. Today we have many of my constituents and many folks from around the state from the Persian cultural circle over here. This is a really complex and important year for them to be here in the legislature having conversations about everything that's going on overseas. Our folks from the Iranian American community have a lot to say and it's important that we listen to them and we're just so grateful to have them here. Today is the 10th Nehruz breakfast that they've hosted in this building and we're just so grateful to have them here. So I hope you were able to stop by this morning, enjoy a good breakfast and a really important conversation. With that, I did have a tribute requested this morning to support the Persian cultural circle that I will read. The Colorado Senate recognizes March 20, 2026 as Nauru's Day, celebrating the Persian New Year and the arrival of spring. Observed for more than 3,000 years, Nauru's marks a season of renewal and new beginnings when families and communities come together to set intentions for love, health, growth, joy, and connection. The Nauru season also honors the Iranian-American community whose rich cultural traditions and contributions strengthen and enrich the state of Colorado. It further acknowledges the Lion and Son movement in Iran, which reflects the aspirations of many Iranians for secular democracy, human rights, gender equity, and environmental stewardship through regime change. This March, we honor and remember the more than 40,000 individuals who have lost their lives in the struggle for liberty and dignity in Iran. and we stand in solidarity with the Iranian people in their continued pursuit for freedom and democratic values. Through the celebration of Nauru's, communities across Colorado recognize the enduring values of renewal, cultural heritage, and shared hope for a more just, free, and peaceful world. With that, welcome to the chamber. Thank you for being here. We appreciate your engagement this morning on this 10th annual breakfast that the Persian Cultural Circle has had here in this building. So thank you all.

Senator Judah Thank you Mr President I request a moment of personal privilege Granted Members I have a special guest here with me today My niece Amina Judah is shadowing me here today Stand up Amina She is from the Springs and she really wanted to get a sense of the legislative process and maybe one day go into politics, but hopefully not. Anyways, if we could just welcome her, I'd really appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. President. I ask for a moment of personal privilege.

So today we're visited here in the Capitol by the leadership of the Nederland Public Library. And if you wanted to just stand up and...

So if everybody could just... They do amazing work. Nederland is a small town, but they're very mighty in what they accomplish. And welcome. And Senator Marshman, would you also like a moment of personal privilege? May I please have a moment of personal privilege?

Thank you, and good to see you all. I have so many amazing little cups and mugs from you, but thank you for the service that you provide to our rural and mountain communities. And we're excited to have all the librarians here today. You guys were very prompt and punctual, we noticed. Thank you.

House Bill 1191 by Representatives Johnson and Bacon and Senators Frizzell and Weissman. Concerning the examination of a school district that receives state education fund money for capital construction projects for qualified charter schools in the district and in connection therewith, making the state auditor's examination of the school district's records discretionary rather than mandatory.

Is there any discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the motion is the passage of the bill on the third reading of bill's consent calendar. Are there any no votes? with a vote of 33 eyes, zero no, zero absent, two excuse. House Bill 1191 is passed. Co-sponsors. Co-sponsors for 1191.

Oh, Senator Judah. Senator Carson. Co-sponsor on 1191. Please add the president. Third reading of bills, final passage. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Majority Leader, third reading of bills, final passage.

The motion is delivered third reading of bills, counter Tuesday, March 24th, 2026. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Polls new.

3,000 bills countered by labor until Tuesday, March 24, 2026. Majority Leader Rodriguez.

Excellent. What about Joint Budget Committee?

You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Polls no. The ayes have it That motion is adopted Y are more than welcome to get up out of here if y need to And as it was said House Bill 1098 was pulled off of consent and will be at the bottom of the General Order Secondary Bill calendar General Order Secondary Bill's consent calendar. Senator Mullica.

Do you follow the motion? All those in favor, say aye. Polls no. What? The motion is adopted. And the Senate will resolve itself in the committee of the whole. Before considering the register of General Order, second of the bill's consent calendar, and Senator Mullica will take the chair.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move for the passage of the two bills on General Order's Second Reading of Bills Consent Calendar, which are House Bill 1180 and House Bill 1189, and there are no committee reports.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the committee to rise and report.

General orders, second reading of the bills.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Senate proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 112.

Senator Zamora.

I move Senate Bill SB 26-112 to the Judiciary Report.

Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in the committee, what we did is we amended this bill. We did a strike below and incorporated the language from HB 25-1275. So the sponsors of that bill was Representative Soper and Representative Bird. and Senator Roberts and Senator Frizzell. So that...

We did the strike below, incorporated.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, last November, the mayor of Colorado Springs requested a meeting of all the legislators in the area, and the chief of police, the municipal judges, city council members, and several business owners from around the city. And the goal was to address the challenges facing our local economy brought on from increased crime and failure to appear rates. And these issues have been placing a real strain on businesses, especially the small mom and pop businesses. And this isn't just happening in Colorado Springs. It's happening across the entire state and in your districts also. We spent half a day listening to the business owners describing how crime was increasing and significantly impacting their businesses, and how they were frustrated at how the same criminals would continue to rob them, but there was no justice or restitution. Why? Because there was no penalty or accountability for the criminal, all due to the limited current laws. Not only were the businesses experiencing a significant loss in revenue as it compounded, little by little they kept getting impacted greater and greater, but they also incurred costs in having to increase their security. One business, a little small Mexican restaurant, spends over $6,000 a month in added security. Another business spends $50,000 in security. That's including cameras, various technology, and hiring security guards, and constructing security gates. Again, these are significant costs, especially to these small businesses. And then add the fact that they're incurring losses in revenue due to stolen goods, decreased consumers due to increased crime, and increased insurance rates. These businesses are getting pummeled They operating on the margins and if nothing is done they talked about closing their business and exiting the market which would create a scarcity in the market. These business owners are the victims in this situation. Their property rights have been violated and eroded. noted. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been significantly and negatively impacted. Then after hearing from the business owners, we heard from the chief of police and the judge. They described the other side of the story, where if they caught the criminals and ordered them to appear in court, the criminals wouldn't show because the current law has no penalty. Thus the criminals are incentivized to continue the criminal behavior because there's no penalty or accountability. To quote the judge, this becomes a revolving door for the criminal, a willful behavior where failure to appear, or as we say FTA, increases. And thus the law enforcement spends significant time re-arresting individuals for FTAs, which are often compounded by additional crimes committed by individuals when they are released on PR bonds. Now the increased FTAs also create negative consequences. During committee, several judges gave testimony supporting this bill. They described how FTAs have increased, criminal behavior has increased, open cases has increased, hours for judicial staffing has increased, the waste in taxpayer dollars has increased, the time for victims and witnesses to take off additional work to go to court time and time again has increased, all without remedy. In fact, one judge during testimony held up a stack of over 30 folders, each representing a case. It was this thick. And he said, I have even more to show you. each folder for one individual who repetitively chose criminal behavior. Understand that the judge had several more stacks of folder for many, many more individuals. The judges are desperately needing a mechanism to resolve this issue. our businesses desperately need justice and protection of their property rights and our citizens deserve safe communities and so i am proud to present senate bill 26 112 on behalf of not just my community but yours also as i mentioned this is a strike below and we replaced it with a verbiage from House Bill 25-1275. This is a narrow, common-sense accountability bill. It is not about punishing someone for a single mistake, and it is not a broad expansion of pretrial detention It is about what happens when a defendant willfully and repeatedly fails to appear in the same case not a different case the same case and the court has very limited tools to respond Our justice system depends on something basic. When a court order orders someone to appear, that order has to mean something. justice delayed is justice denied for victims, witnesses, and our communities. When defendants repeatedly and willfully do not show up, cases stall. Victims and witnesses are dragged through delay. Law enforcement has to spend additional time on warrants and follow-up and public confidence in the system erodes. I'll repeat that again. Public confidence in our system erodes. This bill gives courts a measured response to that problem. It focuses on repeat non-appearance, not first-time mistakes. It also preserves important safeguards. In many proceedings, if counsel is present, the absence does not count as a failure to appear. And for municipal courts, prior failures to appear can only be used if the court has procedures in place for continuances, for quashing warrants, for excusing non-willful absence, and if the court checked whether the person was ready in custody. So this bill strikes a balance. It recognizes that not every missed court date is intentional, but it also recognizes that repeated defiance of court orders simply can't be ignored. At the end of the day, this is about preserving respect for the rule of law, protecting the integrity of the court process, and giving judges a narrow tool when public compliance has clearly failed. This bill has the support of the State Department of Public Safety, State Patrol, judges, law enforcement, business owners, and citizens. And I also want to say that from HB 25, 1275, they had it at two FTAs. We made an amendment to make it three. So, again, I am proud to sponsor this. Our judges, our law enforcement, our community are desperately asking for us to pass this bill. So I urge an aye vote on SB 26112. Thank you.

So Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So along with my colleague from Frisco, we were sponsors of House Bill 1276 last year. But unfortunately, we were not able to bring House Bill 1276 to this chamber because it was killed in the House Judiciary Committee. And that's really unfortunate because this is important policy. This is really good policy. This is policy that if you are out talking to constituents, maybe you saw a few at your county assembly recently, if you're out talking to constituents, they worry about crime in Colorado. And that's one reason why I took up this bill last year. This bill is not just something that got dreamed up somewhere. This was brought to us by, I believe, the Colorado Municipal League because it's a problem. It's a huge, huge problem. And I agree. Most defendants who have a failure to appear are not going to commit a violent crime while they're on the run, but some do. And those that do significant harm to another person need to be held accountable. It's our job here as legislators to protect our citizens. We talk a lot about due process in this building, due process. And due process is a big deal. and requiring a defendant to attend a court appearance is due process. That is their opportunity. It's a basic requirement, and we've become extremely, extremely lenient. We have a problem that we have some over-lenient judges who are just letting criminals out on bond or no bond, and then they don't show up to court. That's what this bill is about. And you might say, well, you know, it's not that big a deal. It's not that big a deal. Well, it is a big deal. Just last week in Douglas County, I don know about you did you guys hear about this This is crazy So there this guy living in Douglas County who reported repeatedly sorry repeatedly raped the 11-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. 11 years old. This child. She was 11 years old. When those assaults began. All right, I'll clarify that. She didn't get much support from her mother, unfortunately, but she did find help. And this guy was picked up and arrested. They had proof, and he went to trial recently, and on the last day of his four-day trial, he cut off his ankle bracelet and left the state.

Yes.

Sure, I'd be happy to. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. This gentleman was out on bond. cut off his ankle bracelet and left the state. Unbelievably and happily, he was caught on a bus headed to Mexico over the weekend because, candidly, I talked to DA George Brockler, and he wasn't really too hopeful that this gentleman was going to be found and brought back to justice. he was really, really not hopeful. But some person saw this guy sitting on the bus and said, hey, I recognize him from a picture, and thank goodness he did. There's others. This is just recent. This is Douglas County, but I have several other registered sex offenders who had previously been convicted of child abuse.

At whatever level of court a failure to appear occurs, it impacts society. It impacts the judicial system, and it happens way too often. We heard from my previous colleagues up here talking on this bill, Senate Bill 112, that we have a rate of something like 39% failure to appear in different levels of courts. This impacts the Department of Law. It impacts public defenders. It just jams up the entire system. Municipal court is different, and I get that. But this is a systemic issue in the state of Colorado. Last year, I brought a bill to increase the number of judges. in the state of Colorado. These weren't municipal judges. These are judges in the Department of Law and counties. But here's the thing. We brought that bill, and I'm not a big Gro government person. You know that about me. but we brought that bill because we have a crisis of due process in the state of Colorado. I thought it was important and I still think it's important. But when you have a judicial system at every level that is stuck because you have people not showing up for their court date and wasting people's time, that's a problem. And it keeps happening over and over and over again. Again, it is our job as legislators to protect our citizens. When somebody does something wrong, they should be held accountable. not just forget to come or intentionally avoid their responsibility. This bill is an important bill. I am grateful that we're going to have amendments because there are obvious concerns. We have people who are homeless that just simply are sometimes not able to figure it out or get transportation. We also have situations where we have somebody who's picked up. They fail to appear because they are already being incarcerated for some other offense. and they simply can't appear. Those were some of the arguments that we heard last year on House Bill 1276. I think that we have ways of dealing with those situations. I know that the bill sponsor is very interested in dealing with those situations, and so I look forward to multiple amendments on this bill. Senator Rich.

There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read Amendment L-25?

That's a proper motion. Tell us about Amendment L-25. Senator Rich.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to rise and support the amendment by our distinguished colleague from Grand Junction. And this also, I think, alludes to a point that the senator from Castle Rock was making about dangerous individuals and how we're going to treat folks who are out in the community repeatedly failing to appear in court, and yet they're engaged in this particular case, the subject of the Senator from Grand Junction's amendment, domestic violence, accused of domestic violence. An accusation which clearly involves danger to individuals danger to the community and so I think it completely appropriate in that case to bring an amendment to reduce that period of time reduce the number of failures to appear before the judge can have the discretion to require a monetary bond bond, and in this case, after one failure to appear. Remember here, folks, we're talking about domestic violence. We're talking about a situation where someone, in many cases, women are being abused, and unfortunately, in some of these cases, it ends up in more than abuse. It can end up in death and I think municipalities have a very strong interest in protecting the citizens of their community in cases like this of domestic violence. So I think we want to make it very clear that while in the broader context of this bill, we're willing to go not one time, not two times, but three times, a third failure to appear and then all the bill does is give the municipal judge the authority. They still have the discretion. They may choose not to issue a monetary bond, but they have that ability and I think when you're talking about situations of violence, such as domestic violence, you want to give them that discretion even in a shorter number of failures to appear. So we're not talking about someone just not being accused of domestic violence, but this is someone who has not only been accused, the charge has been filed, and then they don't show up in court. And so then we would come in and say the judge would have the discretion to impose the monetary bond. This is an excellent amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Senator Weissman. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Members, let's bring some facts into the discussion about domestic violence. In state law, there's not an offense in Title 18 or anywhere else that is captioned domestic violence. Rather, domestic violence is a factual basis. It is some conditions to control the victim, for example, that can and often do underlie any of a number of different offenses. You can have domestic violence felony assault. You can have domestic violence stalking.

Sorry, it's soft today. You could have domestic violence misdemeanor assault. These aren't going to be in municipal court in the first place. some municipalities there we go some municipalities do it differently some I believe have a first of all there's not many municipalities that even take cognizance of DV at all they let it go in the state court some depart from the state approach they do have an actual offense with the elements listed out and what has to be proven called domestic violence so it's a bit different than the state approach, and that's their prerogative as a municipal court. Those are most likely not in the bill as it is because they're misdemeanor comparable offenses. Again, the law already says, 16.4.113 sub 2, there's a bunch of exclusions to this whole thing that we're talking about, which is a PR bond. One of those exclusions is that you're comparable to a misdemeanor offense. I don't think anybody in this chamber is debating the seriousness of DV, which is why I wish we'd be a little bit more anchored to the facts and the law when we talk about it up here. There are a bunch of things that are colloquially called domestic violence that aren't going to be in municipal court anyway because they shouldn't be. Because they are serious offenses, they're going to be in district court. some may be in county court, where we have an offense that is domestic violence in the small number of municipal courts that have even put that into their ordinances, it is most likely on the facts and the law going to be municipal comparable and thus not in the bill at all For those reasons you know were this amendment to get added onto the bill I mean I don personally object but I just wish that we would treat domestic violence seriously and anchor our discussions a little bit more carefully in the laws that people have to try to live by for their safety. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the comments from the Senator from Aurora, Chairman of our Committee, and I respect that, but I do think it, I think this is a point in the debate where you need to point out, where we all need to point out and recognize that municipal courts, municipalities, often have unique criminal offenses for things such as domestic violence or gun laws or careless driving. these type of things, the lowest level courts in the municipalities may want to have a different offense, a different means of dealing with criminal activity in their communities than the states or even the federal courts. So I think that is a big part of this bill. One of the main points of this bill is that municipalities are different. And we need to give them more authority to enforce their laws. And I think what we have seen here so far this morning is we have seen comments most recently by the senator from Colorado Springs supporting this amendment. Obviously, the senator from the Air Force Academy has spoken eloquently on this issue of needing to give municipal courts more authority. The senator from Castle Rock carried this legislation last year, and it has been incorporated into this bill. I don't understand why it didn't pass last year, but we're going to keep making a run at this kind of thing. The Senator from Grand Junction has offered this completely appropriate, I think, amendment. And what I think this shows you is that our constituents are talking to us about this issue. We're hearing from our constituents all across the state that we want municipal courts to have more authority authority to deal with these situations where people repeatedly, repeatedly fail to appear in court. Excuse after excuse after excuse. You know, we all want to be sympathetic to people who have challenges in life. It might be, you know, much of the discussion in these cases seems to be, well, some of these folks are homeless. Some of these folks may be addicted to alcohol or drugs. Some of these folks may be in a poverty situation. And so we certainly understand the need to be sympathetic, but at some point, I don't think it helps people when you continually have This attitude of, well, your situation exists, it's different, so you don't have to, like the rest of the community, you don't have to appear in court. We're going to send that message that we don't care if you don't show up one time. We don't care if you don't show up two times. We don't care if you don't show up four or five. or in the case of the one judge who testified, I can't remember the exact number. Maybe when the senator from the Air Force Academy comes back up here, she will have the exact number. But I seem to recall it was something about 75 times that this particular individual had failed to appear. And yet the judge is just tremendously frustrated. You know, he's told...

I just simply wanted to make the point that there are unique situations in the municipal courts, and I think this particular amendment recognizes that and helps us to emphasize the importance of this bill.

Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As my colleague from Colorado Springs had mentioned, that our mayor, who is not a Republican, gathered the legislators, the judges, the city councils, the chief of police, the businesses. It was truly bipartisan. And this amendment just raises the threshold. Excuse me. We're on 25.

I was on the wrong line. Excuse me. Amendment 25 simply recognizes that domestic violent cases are different. And like the rest of the bill, this amendment gives judges the discretion, not a mandate, a discretion to require monetary bond after a single failure to appear in a domestic violent case. This gives judges a tool, again, not a mandate, that they don't currently have for petty domestic violence cases. And this amendment is grounded in the reality that these types of cases often involve ongoing safety concerns and real victims who are impacted by delays of perpetrators not showing up to court. voting no is a decision to take that discretion away even in these cases with victims and violent offenders i urge a yes vote on l025 thank you seeing no further discussion the motion before the body is

So, again, as I had mentioned, the importance of this bill. Our community desperately needs it. And so with that, I have another amendment.

Amendment L6, amend Judiciary Committee.

That's a proper motion. Tell us about Amendment L6, Senator Zamora Wilson.

Senator Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to support the amendment by our colleague from the Air Force Academy. And I think the point here is that, you know, what is the point at which we could all agree that ongoing repeat after repeat, failure to appear, is one where we should give the judge, the local municipal judge, the opportunity at least. Again, it's not mandatory because, you know, as we've stated philosophically, we don't think the state should be coming in and mandating things for municipal courts. But let's at least give the judges the authority to issue or require a monetary bond where someone has failed to appear five times. So originally the legislation, Senate Bill 112, when it was introduced into the Judiciary Committee, we had two times. So if you missed a hearing two times you failed to appear I should say two times then we would give the judge the authority to issue the bond So then we raised it to three times And now here we not even talking about four times, we're talking about five times failure to appear. And so why do we want to make this an option. Repeated failures to appear create significant problems in the justice system. You know, this isn't a minor, just sort of procedural unimportant thing. The administration of justice in municipal courts, state courts, whatever courts we're talking about, it costs money. It's taxpayer dollars. And I think we all know there's tremendous backlog in our court system. You know, people can't get their cases heard. And many situations occur where the judges are frustrated. We even have, you know, we have difficulty retaining judges, quite frankly, in this state because of the frustration level with their inability to carry out their jobs in an efficient, productive, and cost-effective manner. And so repeated failures to appear create significant problems in the justice system. When defendants repeatedly miss court, victims and witnesses must return multiple times. People often have to take additional time off of work. We don't think about that. I think the Senator from the Air Force Academy made that point pretty loudly when we first started talking about Senate Bill 112. You know, what is the impact on our community? What is the impact on our small businesses? What is the impact on families and law-abiding citizens trying to carry out their lives? Well, they're going to have to, if they're witnesses to a particular, you know, crime being committed, then they're constantly told, well, you've got to come to court to be a witness, but then the person doesn't show up. So sorry about that. We'll get in touch with you the next time you need to come, or the third time you need to come, or the fourth time you need to come, or the fifth time you need to come. Cases are delayed for months or years. Justice delayed is justice denied for victims, for witnesses, and for the communities involved. Courts utilize significant resources issuing warrants and rescheduling hearings instead of resolving cases. So remember, you know, we are to an amendment that is changing this from three to five. So if we can try to stick to what the amendment is, please.

I do think when you're talking about an amendment imposing the right of the judge, or giving the judge the right to impose the bond after five times, I'm simply making a point that it's necessary because we have to continually call all these people back and we have to continually issue warrants every single time. And so this just goes on and on and on. And it's a tremendous drain on the resources of the justice system and on the taxpayers. And so that's simply the point I'm making in support of the senator from the Air Force Academy's amendment as to why I think at least we ought to cut this off at five failures to appear And so I pleased to support the amendment by the good senator here from the Air Force Academy And she may have a few more comments to make on it

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, just restating the fact that this is so important that we are doing this. During the testimony we had the judge from Westminster, he was talking about how failure to appear rates have increased. We were talking about on a two-year average, I mean, they've been increasing 20%. And again, you're talking about what does that mean on the impacts? increase judicial staff workload, increase of victims, having to spend time coming back to court, time from work, that's a cost on them. And so, again, this is so important. We would like to see this pass, just giving our community some mechanism. So this amendment raises the threshold to five for failure to appear. They just need something. So I urge a yes vote on L006. Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of Amendment L-006. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no.

The ayes have it. Amendment L-006 is adopted. To the bill.

There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read Amendment L-28?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What this amendment does, this is Amendment L-028. I call, I move Amendment L-028. That is a proper motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this amendment, I think, is important to add to the legislative declaration language of the bill to simply recognize that municipal courts have different roles. They have different, they're often enforcing different offenses. Amendment L028 adds a simple but important recognition that municipalities can and do have offenses that do not have a direct comparable offense in state law. These are still real offenses and they are a part of how local communities address public safety. This language ensures that reality is reflected in the legislative declaration And I really think it gets to an important point You know we outlined a couple of instances here in the legislative declaration where the offenses might be somewhat different. Local public safety concerns, such as domestic violence, which was mentioned earlier in the amendment by our colleague from Grand Junction. firearms regulation, traffic safety, which I will just note, this is becoming a greater and greater concern, I think, in our local communities, is the numbers of, you know, pedestrians, bicyclists, workers who just don't feel safe because of the speeds at which people are racing through communities or the reckless behavior they're exhibiting. And so I think it's entirely appropriate for local jurisdictions to want to enforce these traffic offenses more strictly and say, you know, we don't want this going on in our community. And then if people are continually ignoring the court system and failing to appear, that we want to give our municipal judges the authorities they need and they've asked for to enforce the law. So, you know, this amendment I think is pretty straightforward, pretty simple, and I would urge an aye vote for it.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Members, I've been trying to not.

There you go. Mics are challenging today. I've been trying to not get too much in the weeds of the various amendments that members on this side of the aisle are bringing forward. But I do want to say something about this one, and I'm going to ask for a no vote, and I want to say a little bit about why. The narrative here keeps veering into crimes that are never in municipal court anyway, or that if they are in municipal court, they've never been in the bill because they've been carved out of the section of statute from the minute the statute was laid down in the books in 2019, driving at a high speed, this kind of thing. Again, where you're committing a more serious traffic offense, you may find yourself in state courts in the first instance, or I would direct members' attention to 6-4-113-sub-2, again, excluding certain of the more legitimately more serious traffic-type offenses that we don't want to give the grace of a PR bond to in the first instance. The senator from Highlands Ranch spoke to the court case that was decided by the state Supreme Court last year, saying, I think correctly, that where elements are similar, a municipal court may not impose a greater penalty than state law imposes, because we have this thing called the U.S. Constitution that prohibits that. Comparable language in the Colorado State Constitution as well. There is this gray zone that the court didn't quite reach. conduct where there's not perfectly a state law analog, because that question was not reached by the state Supreme Court, because I think it's actually a pretty serious question, and one that I don't think that we should just kind of casually decide by way of alleged amendment on the floor here I going to suggest that this question not be taken up in this way and that we vote no on L to 1 Senator Zamora Wilson

Again, L028, it just adds a simple but important recognition that municipalities can and do have offenses that do not have a direct comparable offense to state law. And these are real offenses, and they are part of how local communities address public safety. So this language just ensures that reality is reflected in the legislative declaration. and I ask an aye vote on L028. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, we're continuing to make good progress on Senate Bill 112. Thank you for your attention. And I want to commend the senators for trying to take a good bill and make it better. Because sometimes, as we all know, when it goes through the committee process, we don't get it all right. You know, it takes work. And so I want to thank all the senators on both sides of the aisle for paying attention to this really important bill. and with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment.

Senator Liston.

Mr. Chairman, I move Amendment L-033 to Senate Bill 112.

Very good. Well, members are going to do two things. First of all, what this amendment does is it clarifies, like I say, we're trying to really focus in so that we all fully understand the nuances of what we're trying to accomplish when it comes to this important piece of legislation about failure to appear. What this amendment does is clarifies that the bill is focused on repeated conduct. I repeat that, repeated conduct, not a simple idle mistake. We're not trying to hurt a person that has somehow maybe forgotten or they got sick or for some reason was not able to appear. It's for repeated conduct. It reinforces that the intent here is to address patterns of failure to appear, which are situations where individuals are repeatedly ignoring their court obligations, which has been talked about extensively by the good senator from Castle Rock. It helps make the purpose of this bill very explicit. And so with that in mind, members, I want to read you this changes the legislative declaration, and I'll read it to you what it does so that if you don't have a copy of the amendment, under Section 1, under the legislative declaration, The General Assembly finds and declares that this act includes safeguards ensuring monetary bond may only be imposed After multiple intentional failures to appear and after courts have established appropriate notification and compliant procedures. So if you have made a mistake and you didn't appear, this doesn't apply. But if you're continuously basically thumbing your nose at the court and the judicial process and the judge and all of the hard work and time and effort and especially the money that goes into this, that there should be a consequence. So it's a very, very reasonable amendment, members. I urge an aye vote on Amendment L033.

And I want to commend the Senator from Colorado Springs for this amendment. I certainly support it. I think what he's doing here is very important to the legislative language here is to really put a fine point to emphasize, you know, what we're talking about here are deliberate, ongoing failures to appear, deliberate flaunting of the rules and the laws, and consuming time and taxpayer dollars. These are not situations where mistakes are being made. You know, as I mentioned earlier, the courts are pretty reasonable about these things. If you indicate some reason why you can't appear, then you're given some leniency by most judges. It may not always be the case, but I think most judges that I've experienced are pretty reasonable people, and they give people opportunities to reappear if they can't make it one time. But these are, you know, what the Senators from Castle Rock's amendment does is it just makes it clear. We're talking about a pretty clear cases, pretty narrow situation where you have individuals who are just repeatedly, repeatedly, time after time, failing to appear in court. So I think it's a good addition to the bill, and I would urge support for Amendment L033.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just reiterating, this is focused on repeated conduct, not just a single mistake, and this just makes the purpose of the bill more explicit. I urge an aye vote on L-033. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to the bill here. So it is good that we're making improvements here as we move along, because I think this bill is a very important one, an opportunity for the State Senate and the legislature in general to send a message that we support our municipalities, we support our municipal judges. And so I was pleased that the first legislative declaration I offered as an amendment was accepted. So I have another one here that I would like to offer There is an amendment at the desk Will the clerk please read Amendment L Amendment L amend the Judiciary Committee

That is a proper motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So again, this is an addition to the legislative declaration, which I think would constitute an important addition. It simply states that the General Assembly finds and declares that repeated failures to appear delay resolution of cases, require additional court and law enforcement resources, and impose burdens on victims and witnesses who must repeatedly participate in the proceedings. So I talked about this earlier, you know, a lot of times we don't think about all the collateral issues involved here, the impact in general on the community. You know, maybe we're just focusing on, well, this is an individual who repeatedly fails to appear, and so we're going to give the judge the authority to impose a monetary bond. but we I think need to continually emphasize the tremendous cost and burden on the community you know if people are called to be witnesses in cases they've got to be called back warrants have to be reissued the court has to reengage the judge has to go back review the case and so it just goes on and on time is consumed Taxpayer dollars are consumed. And as we mentioned earlier, the law enforcement, the folks that we asked to go out and work day after day to protect our communities, they get pretty frustrated when they have to constantly deal with the same individual who doesn't show up, maybe committing very similar crimes again because they're right there out on the street, the street, whether it's retail theft, whether it's some sort of offense in the local community that the municipality chooses to enforce. And as the senator from Aurora accurately pointed out, the state Supreme Court did put some restrictions on how different some of those things can be. but I think we still have issues which the municipalities are asking for support and the ability to enforce at least to make the system work efficiently. And so that's really what we're asking for in this bill and this legislative declaration in Amendment L030. and I would just ask for its consideration because I think it's favorable consideration because I think it helps us to understand why this bill is being brought in the first place.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so this just, again, simply states the reality that repeated failures to appear, delays cases and takes up court resources and increases pain on victims. And so this amendment just makes sure that we acknowledge those impacts in the legislative declaration and I ask for your support on L030 Thank you Seeing no further discussion the motion before the body is the adoption of Amendment L30 All those in favor say aye

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Boy, I tell you, some of these short people, when they come here and they turn down the microphone, I can't speak to it, so I'm raising the microphone, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, once again, we're having a good, honest, fair discussion about trying to improve a good, thoughtful, reasonable piece of legislation, and that is Senate Bill 112. And so we're trying to get it right. Like I had said earlier, is that a lot of times when bills, for the millions of people that are watching, when bills go through the legislative process, we don't always get it right out of the first committee or even in the first chamber. So we're really trying to fine-tune that. And with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move Amendment L-031 to Senate Bill 112.

Very good. Members, what this does, this is dealing with basically the administrative burden language. It's been talked about once again by my colleagues, the good senator from Castle Rock as well as the good senator from the Air Force Academy, is the administrative burden is that when, you know, I'm not an expert in the court proceedings because I'm not an attorney, but I can't appreciate, you know, all of the work that is done. They're trying to give the accused all of their rights, due process, make sure that the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. There's a lot of work that goes into this. And so what we're trying to fine tune with Amendment L31 is that Amendment 31 just calls out the obvious administrative burden that repeated, once again, I underscore, repeated failures to appear put on the courts and on law enforcement. Missed court dates lead to additional warrants, rescheduling of hearings, the resources that could be used literally for anything else. You know, we're in a time of tight budgets at both locally, county, statewide, all over. So this acknowledges that repeated failures to appear affects the efficiency of the entire system. That's all that Amendment L31 does, and I ask for support for Amendment L31. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's some tall people in this chamber. All right, so L031 is just, again, pointing out the obvious administrative burden and that this just acknowledges repeated failures to appear, affects the efficiency of the entire system.

Back to the bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are getting a lot of these adopted, so I'm going to just offer one more here, which there is an amendment at the desk.

Thank you. I move Amendment L-032.

Senator Carson tells us about Amendment L-32. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is another legislative, well, this amends the Judiciary Committee report, but it is a legislative declaration. And it simply states that the General Assembly finds and declares that it is advantageous for Colorado to establish consistent statewide standards governing failure to appear practices across municipal and state courts. And so I think, you know, as we talked about a little bit, there does seem to be a sense from the Supreme Court that they want more consistency in these things. And I think maybe this is an area we should echo that in the legislative declaration to this bill. and so that's essentially all it says is we want to have a little more consistency between municipal and state courts on this one issue at least of monetary bonds being now giving the judges authority now on the fifth failure to appear. So I certainly don't think we're being too draconian here. We're giving people an awful lot of opportunities to fail to appear And then we want to support our judges and our citizens and our law enforcement officials and make it clear that we do expect in those situations that people show up for their court hearings. So with that, I would urge a favorable vote for Amendment L32.

You know, a few things on the subject of parity. The funny thing is, and we did have some testimony about this in committee, we actually don't, even within the statute we're talking about here, Section 113, have consistency between how that original bill impacted the state court system and how it impacted municipal court systems. systems. Another thing that we heard in committee was that notwithstanding bipartisan work in this legislature over years to stand up a text reminder system. That is what it sounds like, you know, we get a text to like go to the dentist or whatever. It works. It helps people remember to do the thing that they're supposed to do. Back in the late tens, we had evidence from some districts that were early adopters of these that reduced their FTA. It flat just did. So we did policy work to build up a system for the state courts. It was made as an option for local courts to use if they wanted. We didn't mandate that local courts would leverage onto that system. Given that, years later, what we heard in committee was, frankly, practices vary. I think some municipal courts probably do a pretty solid job, at least measured by state standards, of implementing a text reminder system to help address the issues we're speaking of here and that this bill tries, although in my opinion fails to address. But I think we also heard that practices are varying, and not in a good way. It's beyond the scope of this bill, but I did just want to say that on the subject of what the amendment is talking about, which is consistent practices. We all have more work to do in terms of first a survey of which municipal courts have which FTA, a reminder to appear, practices with text messages or other modalities, and then which don't. And then let's try to work with those municipalities and build up their capacity to use this basic technology to get people to court.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So with regards to Amendment 32, again, this is where the goal is to bring and promote greater consistency across the state and municipal courts. We're trying to create a clearer and more uniform expectation, which is fair for all parties, and so I urge an aye vote on Amendment L-032. Thank you.

Senator Weissman.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, I was eating. So I wanted to come down and talk about this bill. I understand my good colleagues' intentions, but our trajectory of criminalizing homelessness isn't working. People aren't getting better. People aren't moving into a more productive space in life. And we have to change the way that we are addressing this epidemic. And I know you all have heard me say it before, but as the parent of somebody who has been homeless, who has been criminal justice involved, no amount of jail time would help him. All that would do is make him worse, make him less likely to recover, less likely to have a job, less likely to show up in court. And so I really urge a no vote on this bill because I believe it is taking us, It is leaning in to something that we have been doing for years that we know isn't working and that is costing our state a lot of resources, not just money, but also human beings who are being punished for the crime of being sick. and I want us to stop doing that and that why I here and this bill only makes that worse and we really need to put our shoulder to the wheel of turning in the other direction and getting people into treatment and care So I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the passionate advocacy of our colleague from Boulder. I'm opposed notwithstanding the amendments and I urge a no vote for some of the same reasons. You know, we talk sometimes here, who's registered what way on the bill. I think not for nothing, and to the senator from Boulder's point, the largest mental health policy advocacy organization in the state is registered opposed because they know that the people they care about are who we're talking about here. The state's official protection and advocacy organization, that's a status pursuant to federal disability law, is registered opposed because they know what's going on here. an organization of some counties is registered opposed. I actually saw an organization of municipal judges registered opposed as of last week. There was reference to law enforcement. I see one organization set up in the system that we all look at sometimes. They're signed up monitor. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement. We talked about some serious offenses down here. Everybody needs to understand that that stuff has never been in not just the bill, but the whole area of law that we're talking about. Anytime somebody is referencing a district attorney and their office, you are not talking about municipal court. DAs don't bring cases to municipal court. That's county court. More likely, it's district court for felonies. There was a reference to retail theft. the state theft statutes allow aggregating of the value of things taken over time, and I think with good reason. We know that theft is in a patterned way sometimes, and we have seen fit going back to 2013 in bipartisan ways to step up the charge level for theft based on the value of what is taken. I think that's appropriate. And we have seen fit to acknowledge that where theft is in a patterned way and may happen a number of times to one or more merchants, sellers, victims, over a period of time that for the sake of delivering the right consequences to somebody doing that, you should add those values up. I think that's fine. That's state law now. I think it honestly makes sense if municipalities choose to follow that thing that state law does. Again, they can do that under the case that we talked about from Westminster. They can't do more. So what does it come down to? It comes down to talking about, well, somebody should pay a bit of money bond and then they can go out. I mean, it sounds easy enough. The problem is when you really look at who we're talking about here, they don't have any money because they don't have a home, because they're probably struggling with mental illness, because they're probably struggling with addiction. So they're not going to get out. They're going to sit inside and probably decompensate with respect to whatever mental illness is going on and maybe take a plea whether or not they actually did what they were accused of, because that's what detention amounts to sometimes. And we're going to have more people backing up in our jails. Those of us paying attention to the DOC situation right now know that we have a challenge in our jails. We hear about this from our counties and their sheriffs, and rightly so. We've always had some number of people who are legally in the custody of the Department of Corrections sitting for some amount of time in our county jails They part of the system and we pay them for that Lately for a whole mix of reasons that number gone up and we seen stuff in the papers and counties aren happy and I understand why they're not happy, and some of us are doing a lot of policy work to try to address that. So it would be anomalous as we do that policy work, as we try to not overutilize county jail capacity, which is a limited resource to be used for maximally protecting public safety. It would be anomalous to then fill this limited resource up with people who have committed some of the lowest level offenses that there are. County jails can be and should be used to hold people pending remand to the DOC for serious offenses. County jails can and should be used for people to serve time for misdemeanor offenses. Misdemeanor 1 has 364 days. That can include serious offenses like assault. Misdemeanor 2 up to 120. Again, those can include some offenses that somebody should have some consequences for. We need to save that limited resource for those things that we're talking about and not fill it up with people who are broken, mentally ill, addicted, broke, and in the shadows of society. This framework that we're talking about here goes back to bipartisan legislation in 2019. I don't believe it should be tinkered with in this fashion, so I am asking for a no vote, and we'll be voting no today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, with the amendments that we've provided, we have done our due diligence in trying to, you could clearly see and carve out those that have true excuses or things that have happened in life. We have gone above and beyond to ensure that we're looking at people who willfully are failing to appear in court. Again, my community, judges, law enforcement, enforcement, businesses, there are true victims in these cases. Justice delayed is justice denied for these victims, for these witnesses in our community. This bill asks a straightforward question. When someone willfully and repeatedly fails to appear, we've bumped it up to five times. In the same case, should the court have a meaningful way to respond? Senate Bill 26-112 says yes, but only in a limited, tailored, and fair way. And we've done that with these amendments. It focuses only on those who repeatedly and deliberately do not show up in court five times or more. In the same case, this bill provides carve-outs for defendants who are unable to show up to court for legitimate reasons. such as hospitalization. This bill does not punish class or status. It holds everyone accountable for their conduct. If a defendant misses court once, twice, three times, four times, five times, regardless of the reason, judges, like I said, it's up to five, sorry. Judges do not have discretion under this bill They are not mandated They have discretion to require a monetary bond But if a defendant misses court five or more times five times even with the numerous safeguards in place to appropriately balance defendants' interests with the public interest, this bill gives judges discretion to require a monetary bond. Remember, it doesn't mandate the judge. This is not a bill that assumes every absence is blameworthy. It is not a bill that removes judicial discretion. It is not a bill that ignores due process. The measure was narrowed and includes safeguards precisely so that courts can distinguish between someone who truly does not appear versus someone who has established a pattern of refusing to comply. What we cannot do is pretend that repeated failures to appear do not matter. They do matter. They delay justice. They burden victims, witnesses, judicial staffing, law enforcement, and the taxpayer. They consume law enforcement resources and they weaken public trust in whether court orders are actually in force. This bill is a measured response. It supports accountability. It supports orderly administration of justice, and it supports the principle that court orders are not suggestions. As stated before, this bill has the support of the State Department of Public Safety, the State Patrol, judges, law enforcement, business owners, and citizens. our community needs this our judges are begging for us to do something they have hundreds of open cases that are sapping resources from the taxpayer i respectfully ask an aye vote on senate bill 26

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the Senate, I move that Senate Bill 40 layover until Tuesday, March the 24th.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Senate Bill 134 lay over until Tuesday, March 24th.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Senate Bill 128 lay over until Tuesday, March 24th.

House Bill 1192 by Representative Phillips, M. Barone, and Senator Exum concerning restructuring the Homeless Prevention Activities Program.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1192.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, this bill, Homeless Prevention Activities Program, HPAP, was created in 2016 mainly dedicated to preventing funding within DOLA. Funding through the income tax checkoff, DOLA typically receives approximately $200,000 to $300,000 for the program. Currently, the HPAP operates as a standalone overseeing program three-member advisory committee. The bill before you today addresses the inefficiency of running parallel programs for the same goals and empower a division of housing to maximize the impact of state funds. This legislation improves government efficiency by removing statutory requirements for a standalone HPAP advisory committee. This change allows DOLA to consolidate the small HPAP grant program into DOLA's larger, more robust existing rental assistance program, ensuring contributions are directed toward direct assistance more efficiently and effectively. This is a good bill that eliminates red tape, aligning itself with DOLA's lean machine, goes to reduce administrative burdens, and I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Senate Bill 122 by Senators Pelton, Aaron Roberts, and Representative Winner T. Concerning liquid fuels and in connection therewith, increasing the maximum amount of liability of the Petroleum Storage Tank Fund for Individual Incidents and allowing the Director of the Division of Oil and Public Safety to adopt a rule or issue policy guidance that provides exceptions to specific requirements established in an ASTM standard for petroleum products.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 122.

Amendment L2. Amendment credit bill page 3924. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L2.

So part of the bill has to do with a fund for if you have underground storage tanks that need a cleanup. In the bill, it was increasing the size of that fund, but what this amendment does is take that amount away and actually gives discretion to the department head and committee to set that limit on each different site may be different. So it's just giving more discretion to the director.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the main reason of bringing this bill is a fixed statute. There's a little blip in statute that some new inspectors were going out and finding fuel storage tank pressures were too high. And they were shutting down some of our fuel distributors out in rural Colorado where they get their fuel from other states and was going to make it to where every ounce of gas had to come from the front range from Suncor, which was going to put fuel on the road that much further, more liability, and could create shortages when we get into the summer and the operating season for agriculture. So we were able to get a grant, a waiver granted until April 15th, And what this bill does is fix that little glitch in this statute to make it a permanent fix. So it's real good for rural Colorado. We can keep getting our fuel from Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and just helps our rural fuel distributors.

House Bill 1039 by Representatives Carter and Ricks and Senators Judah and Weissman concerning

That's a proper motion to the bill. Senator Judah. Thank you Mr. Chair. This is a very simple bill.

Senator Weissman.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1039. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and House Bill 1039 is adopted. Will the clerk please read the title of Senate Bill 83?

We're good now? Will the clerk please read the title of the Senate Bill 83?

Senator Frizzell.

That's a proper motion to the bill.

Senator Weissman.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of Senate Bill 83. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have a Senate Bill 83 is adopted. Will the clerk please read the title of House Bill 1098?

Senator Frizzell.

And the local government?

To the committee report, Senator Frizzell.

The motion before the body is the adoption of the local government housing committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have and the local government housing committee report is adopted. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read amendment L3.

That is a proper motion. Tell us about Amendment L3, Senator Frizzell.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of Amendment L3. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Amendment L3 is adopted. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read Amendment L-4?

That's a proper motion. Tell us about Amendment L-4.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of Amendment L-4. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have Amendment L-4 is adopted. To the bill, Senator Frazell.

Senator Kipp.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1098. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No, the ayes have it. House Bill 1098 is adopted. Majority Leader Rodriguez.

The motion before the body is to rise and report. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The committee will rise and report. Senate will come to order. Senator Mulligan.

The committee has met, had a number of bills under consideration.

Senator Mullica.

There is an amendment of the desk.

Senator Zemmour Wilson. Thank you, Mr. President. I move S-001 to SB 26-112.

Thank you, Mr. President. I just would like to show that Senate Bill 26-112 passed. Thank you.

Senators, Amabile, Wallace, Kipp, Judah, Gonzalez, Doherty, Benavidez, Cutter, Mr. Majority Leader, Marchman, Weissman, Bridges, Sullivan, Lindstedt, Colker.

please you to title of HJR 1022. House Joint Resolution 1022 by Representatives Brown and Joseph and Senators Zambabale and Wallace concerning the designation of Arapahoe Road from the intersection of U.S. Route 36 to the intersection of U.S. Route 287 as the Road of Remembrance.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Joint Resolution 26-1022.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. President. In the 1920s, Boulder County civic veterans and government groups came together to plan a road of remembrance along Arapahoe Road from what was then Lincoln Highway and is now 287. This road was intended to honor the Boulder County soldiers who served in World War I. At 287 and Arapahoe in Lafayette today, right down the road from where I was raised, there's the Gateway to the Road, a project which was started in the late 20s but was halted during the Depression. While recent development has threatened the integrity of that gateway, it has also spurred efforts to ensure the road of remembrance was formally recognized and our World War II I vets are rightfully honored. And thus, we have this resolution today. I'm grateful to CDOT, the Boulder Rotary Club, and our local veterans groups that formed the working group to address these issues. For me, it's a wonderful opportunity to join in recovering this conversation that started in my community nearly 100 years ago and to honor the sacrifices of my home county's military members from World War I. Thank you, members, for your attention, and I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. President, and I just want to thank my good colleague from Boulder County. This has been a long time coming, and there has been a lot of debate about these stone pillars, and people have often asked, what are those there for? and this resolution will help to clarify that and bring some closure to the people who have worked so hard to make this happen. I would appreciate a yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. I ask that the current roll call be added as co-sponsors.

Mr. Schaffer, please be your title.

Thank you Mr President I move to layover House Joint Resolution 1017 until Tuesday March the 24th The motion is lay over H 1017 to Tuesday March 24th

Thank you. Thank you.

The motion is reconsideration of the Committee of the Whole Report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The motion is adopted and reconsideration is granted.

Do you have to move for the adoption of the committee?

Aye. Okay. On the calendar. On the calendar.

There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Samora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. President. I move S-001 to Senate Bill 26-112. Thank you.

Senators. Gonzales, Wallace, Mr. Majority Leader, Judah, Doherty, Kipp, Benavidez, Marchman, Cutter, Amabile, Weissman, Henriksen, Bridges, Sullivan, Lindstedt, Colker.

17 16 17 16

Senator Pelton R.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the appointments listed on the consent calendar. Members of the State Board of Health, for a term expiring March 1, 2027, Megan Hillman of Lamar, Colorado, to serve as a resident of the 4th Congressional District and an unaffiliated occasion by the resignation of Lisa Neal Graves, of Parker, Colorado, appointed. For terms expiring March 1st, 2029, Laura Schunk of Denver, Colorado, resident of the 1st Congressional District and a Democrat to serve as a member at large appointed. Deborah Fitch of Parshall, Colorado, a resident of the 2nd Congressional District and a Republican to serve as a member at large appointed. Erin. of Cajon, Colorado, resident of the 3rd Congressional District and unaffiliated to serve as the County Commissioner appointed. Stan Vanderwerf of El Paso, Colorado, to serve as a resident of the 5th Congressional District and as a Republican reappointed. Christina Sue of Aurora, Colorado, to serve as a resident of the 6th Congressional District and as an unaffiliated reappointed. Members of the Front Range Passenger Rail District Board, Denver Regional Council of Governments. Chris Nevitt, reappointed January 7, 2026. Term expires December 31, 2029. Deborah Mulvey reappointed January 7, 2026 term expires December 31, 2029. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Tricia Canamico reappointed on December 29, 2025 terms expired December 31, 2029. Pueblo Area Council of Governments Miles Lucero appointed December 11, 2025 term expires December 31, 2029. Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments Corey Applegate appointed January 16, 2026 term expires December 31, 2029. Vector of April 2, 2026 for for a term expiring December 31st, 2029. Clara Levy of Boulder, Colorado, deserves a resident of a city and county through which commuter rail service was planned as part of the voter approved RTD fast track transit expansion program, but has not been constructed reappointed. Mr. Majority Leader.

Any discussion? Seeing none, the motion is a confirmation of the appointments on the consent calendar. Are there any no votes? with a vote of 33 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, and 2 excused. Those appointments are confirmed. Message from the House.

Announcement, Senator Colker.

Very good. Senator Colker.

Very good.

Very good.

Granted.

Very good.

Very good.

Grants it.

Thank you, Senator.

I approve the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. You guys have it. The Senate will adjourn until 9 a.m. on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026. Thank you.