Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 076

Amen. The house will come to order. Today, the Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Michael Danels, Stella King, Andre Beaudre, Emily Adam-Diaz, and from the Studio School, North Glen, Colorado, guests of Representative Wilford. Please join us for the pledge.

Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.

With 57 present, 8 excused, we do have a quorum. Representative Froelich. Members, can I have your attention? Representative Froelich

Members, you have heard the motion that the journal be approved as corrected by the Chief Clerk All those in favor say aye Aye All those opposed, no No. The ayes really do have it. The motion passes. Members, announcements and introductions. Representative Goldstein.

Thank you, Rep. Goldstein. Representative McCormick.

Thank you. Any other announcements? Any other announcements or introductions?

Seeing no other announcements or introductions. Members, I'll invite you to take your seats. We are getting to business. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed immediately to consideration of House Resolution 1003. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Resolution 1003.

Who would like to speak?

Our resolution will be read at length. Mr. Schiebel.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll just restate that the Be It Resolved Clause be read at length.

be it resolved by the house of representatives of the 75th general assembly of the state of colorado that we the members of the colorado house of representatives reaffirm our commitment to the goals and principles of our responsibilities as stewards of the earth in recognition of 2026 earth day and international day of zero waste and in keeping with our moral obligation to limit waste and protect and enhance the long-term health of the state's natural environment economy and community We support Earth Day and International Day of Zero Waste by inviting and encouraging all citizens, businesses, organizations, schools, clubs, congregations, neighborhoods, and families to participate in Community International Day of Zero Waste events on March 30, 2026 and Earth Day activities on April 22, 2026, and to engage in environmentally sound and waste-reducing practices in their everyday lives. using the observance of International Day of Zero Waste and Earth Day as a springboard for exploring new avenues for sustainability and waste reduction, demonstrating leadership and continually evaluating state operations, facilities, and services to ensure the highest standard of efficiency, sustainability, waste reduction, and environmental protection, forging partnerships with local organizations, environmental professionals, businesses, and citizens to encourage the adoption of statewide sustainability practices and the development of green technologies and become a model for the region and county, and encouraging teachers and parents to emphasize environmental awareness among young people so that they have the knowledge to make sound choices in their daily lives to preserve and enhance our natural environment and are able to join the workforce of our state with a strong environmental ethic.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, members of the House. This resolution was written because protecting our planet cannot be an afterthought. It must be a priority. Colorado is defined by its natural beauty or mountains or rivers or open spaces, and with that identity comes a responsibility to protect it At the heart of this resolution is a simple but urgent truth What we waste matter Every piece of food thrown away, every material sent to a landfill, every missed opportunity to reduce, reuse, and recycle has real impact. Waste is not just about what we discard. It is about the resources we lose, the emission we create, and the future we shape. Reducing waste is one of the most immediate and powerful ways we can care for our environment and protect the land we share. And this is not about politics. Protecting our environment is not a democratic issue or republican issue. It is a shared responsibility. Every single one of us rely on clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. Every single one of us has a role to play in protecting it. We only have one earth, one place that we all call home, and the decision we make every day about how we live, how we consume, and how we care for environment well-defined, the world we leave behind. This resolution is a call to action to lead by example, to reduce waste, to be better stewards of our resources, and to come together across communities and across differences to protect the only planet we have. Because this is bigger than any one of us, it is about all of us and the future we share. We ask for a yes on this resolution.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, if you consider when Earth Day was first adopted, going back to 1970, there was a man, a Coloradan, John McConnell, who lived here in Denver. And as we celebrate our state's 150th birthday, recognizing kind of how Colorado has also shaped the environmental movement within the United States. I was also at a time when the Nixon administration introduced the Environmental Protection Agency, and vast changes were starting to take impact across this nation. I agree. The environment is not a political issue, although how we achieve that might be one where we have different terms that we use. But I don't like to see the fact that there's now certain terms that we can't use one way or the other. Because one thing that I hear from all of my constituents, whether it's the hunters who are conserving our land and making sure that there's good animal habitat, to my constituents who might be in a different part of the district who want to see us go to a complete carbon-free world, what they do agree on is that the environment is important and that Colorado is a special place and that we want to make sure that what we have here in Colorado today, that our children and our grandchildren will be able to have in the future. And for those reasons, I would encourage a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And first and foremost, before I start my comments, I want to tell both of the sponsors I appreciate what you're trying to do here. And I agree with about 95% of this resolution, but there's not a 95% button on the desk. The issue I have with the resolution is, is first and foremost, I want to say that the rural areas, we're the true conservationists in this state. We live in a place where there's blue sky. We live in a place where there's clean water. and we live in a place where there's green grass. I believe in Earth Day. I'm an all-above-energy Republican, so I have no issues where we look at wind and solar, nuclear energy, geothermal. But you have to understand that in this resolution, there is a victory lap taking on ending jobs in my district. I say it all the time. I represent the people of House District 47. the jobs that are referenced in this resolution as we move towards a cleaner environment, I believe some of there is some misinformation about some of the industries that we have in this state. I'm not here to talk about the misinformation today because I do not want to make this political. But at the end of the day, losing jobs in my district is not political. Losing jobs in my district is something that has happened. and you have to understand that there's real world consequences and this affects people where I'm from and where we do want the same things we've got to find a common ground on how we get there because it has picked winners and losers so I want you all to know that I agree with the majority of this resolution and I stand committed to stand with you on those things but I don't agree with taking a victory lap and ending jobs in my district I can't put my name on something when I see people back at home that talk about how their families have had to move to other states to find gainful employment I can't vote for something that has decimated my rural economy I can't vote for something that has put my people on government existence because they don't have any other jobs to go to it's not fair to kill an industry and then look at the people as collateral damage and i just can't stand for that so my commitment to all of my colleagues in this building i will continue to work toward a better environment for all of us i've got kids and hopefully i have grandkids and they have kids and grandkids one day and i want them to live in a clean environment but i also have people right now that need to feed their families they need to put gas in their cars they need to feel their worth because their identities have been stolen they were the miners they're the roughnecks that work in the oil and gas field they're the people that have built this state and they're the people that have powered this state and I'm standing up here today for them to give them the respect that they deserve and let them know even though I want a clean environment for all I can't do it at the benefit of my constituents in House District 47 So today I will be a very respectful no.

Yeah, well is down here. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I agree that the environment shouldn't be political, but here we are. But we politicize it every day. and we make these moral judgments just like my colleague just mentioned and i can go back to if we go downstairs and we look at it mining oil gas and agriculture those are the real economies of the state that's what the state is built on and this movement and we and yes i understand this is about waste but there a lot of other stuff in here also and so i explaining why although very much in favor of being a good steward of our planet and a good steward of our environment that I going to have to vote no Because of the politicization easy for me to say And when we look at this and we concern ourselves, we concern ourselves with food waste. But around the country, we see solar panels being built, solar fields built on crop fields. And sometimes those can work together and sometimes they can't. But the priority goes to solar. Now, I was looking at this the other day because we're dealing with data centers and we're having, and say Colorado Springs is missing, we have roughly 800 megawatts of dispatchable power. We peak out at 1,100, meaning it has to be shipped over. The governor and his utility commission are eminent domaining their way across the state of Colorado, devastating 25 acres per mile of high voltage line at a cost of $5 to $7 million per mile. That's political. That's highly political. And so you can't say we're not going to politicize the environment when you politicize the environment and say, as my colleague so clearly, that the people in this green agenda are collateral damage. And ironically, the environment itself is collateral damage. And so what do we need to look at? Well, we just, for coal. because of the dearth of scientific literacy in this state, in the country. We don't look at things like absolute risk. We don't look at absolute proportions. We look at relative. We look at the politicization of carbon dioxide at 280 parts per million, Just barely, just barely above keeping plant life and therefore all life alive. 5,000 is pretty good. 1,500 to 2,000 is pretty optimum for greenhouses. 280 is right on the bottom edge. And what we've done currently, it's gone up to 420, even though most of the countries are net carbon sinks. So why is it going up? TBD. But that is an increase of 50%, a relative increase. It's a 0.014% increase if you look at it absolute, but we're using that as a justification to spend $17 billion, hundreds of billions of dollars across the state. In the last few years, we've spent $17 billion, $700 million per year. Now we're in a budget deficit because we've blown through $4 billion of surplus. We've blown through $3 billion, $4 billion of participation trophies. That's political, and that is based on a very non-stewardship mentality. Now, when I was environmental manager on Earth Day, I would run the biggest recycle events in the state, thousands of pounds. I also worked with the DNR, the Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife. But we're choking out the livelihood, and we're driving up the energy costs. We're destroying arable land, and we mostly affect the poor in this country. Because you could almost look at it and say everybody has the same cost of energy in their life, relatively, but that cost of energy is a higher percentage and it is borne out by the poor and it keeps them down It keeps them in a permanent state of poverty and misery that they then in turn are reliant on government programs That's political. The entire movement is political. So to come in here and say that, well, we don't want it to be political, well, you made it political. We're normalizing PSPS events because we've gotten rid of dispatchable power. we've decreased at the cost of $17 billion, $700 million per year, we've reduced the usable power in the state by 40% and only increased the absolute availability if the sun is shining by 2%. That's political. Millions of dollars are lost in productivity and resources every time we have a PSPS event, but our solution is political, and that is to normalize them and to say get used to them. Buckle up, buttercup, they're coming. They're coming fast and furious because we don't want to deal with stuff like grid resilience. We don't want to deal with the fact that the PUC said the grid is so vulnerable that we don't want to tell you how vulnerable it is because you don't have enough money to fix it. That's political. That's the four appointees of the governor. The grid is so vulnerable. And that's not talking about PSPS events. That's talking about losing, that's putting the lives of millions of people at risk. Not their economic lives, their lives. And it's political to be on a committee and say, I went through a three-day blackout. I didn't think it was so bad. So I'm pretty sure a Carrington event that wipes out the power for 40 million people for four years, that wouldn't be so bad either. That's political. It's political when you talk about encouraging teachers to emphasize environmental knowledge, and then you teach them that the ocean is acidifying when it's just becoming less alkaline. And kiddos, if somebody has ever told you that the ocean is getting more acidic, they're lying. It's becoming less basic. Basic is caustic. And when they put that little shell in the water and they put carbon dioxide in it, and then they bring it out and they weigh it, What they're doing is they make sure that it's a dead shell. There's no life in it because life loves carbon dioxide. Life loves carbon dioxide. Try it without carbon dioxide. So this is a very political, this is very political. And to talk about our moral obligation is just ironic. Just to say, well, we're doing this morally. We have a moral obligation to do this. You don't have a moral obligation to act immorally. You don't have a moral obligation to impose your delusions on somebody else. And what are those delusions? Well, if you just do it basically and you say carbon dioxide is 100% responsible for the 33 degrees that keep us out of absolute freezing planet, an ice planet, and you say carbon dioxide is 100% responsible for that and you take the Colorado and you divide it by 100 million tons, billion tons, 0.1 billion tons rather, and you divide it by the 3,300 billion tons that are in the atmosphere, you quickly come to a realization that the most that Colorado can do by magnitudes, by rounding up by magnitudes, is 0.001 degrees Celsius. So divide it by 10, actually probably divide it by 100 and you're getting more accurate. That's a temperature that you'll pass in a blink of an eye. So we spending tens of billions hundreds of billions of dollars in the state let alone in the country on a temperature decrease theoretically that you will pass through in your day in a blink of an eye That's political. And so you've politicized the entire environment, and you've put the lives and the livelihoods of the kiddos on the wall at great risk. And that's not moral. for 0.001 degrees. It doesn't matter how you slice it. I'm saying 100%. That's political. It's political to take $5 billion and give it to the governor for a choo-choo train on a high-speed rail to nowhere. That's political.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's political when we turn food into fuel at the detriment of both our vehicles and the environment. That's political. So to pretend that the environmental movement is anything but political is political. And I, unfortunately, or fortunately, will be a no vote on this. I hope the teachers on the side and the kiddos on the side will realize that the entire green movement that they've been taught is a 100% lie. We need to be good stewards.

I hope you will do your own research. And that was as respectful as I could be about that program.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did want to stand today because I do think that this is important to speak about. I believe that I'm the only one in here that has 95 or better percent of an environmental management degree or an environmental degree, environmental graduate degree completed. I think that this is an important topic. I grew up in Colorado. I love the outdoors. I know we all do. I love the earth. As a young Boy Scout, I learned to be a good steward, to take care of it, to reduce my waste if possible. I think all of those things are important things to do. There is one paragraph in the resolution that I'm opposed to. It's the one that speaks to taxpayer support for a new energy economy, the use of financial incentives for exemptions, for more incentives, for more exemptions. At a time when we are in an extreme budget struggle, why are we talking about exemptions and incentives for something that is not necessarily necessary? Another thing that I am opposed to, I certainly don't stand for the impacts that our green economy that we have created have on the strong energy industry workers and their families and their communities from my district. Oil and gas is an established, affordable, and clean carbon energy. It is a good industry. It's not something that we should be shoving down and pushing away. Is it okay to develop renewable resources? It is. That's fine. But should we be stepping away from, again, established, affordable, and clean carbon energy? No, we should not. Not in the way that we're doing it now. and not with the incentives and not with the exemptions that we're giving to the green renewable energy industry. So again, 95% of this resolution I love. I think it's great. I absolutely think that we should be doing good things for our environment. We love the earth. I look forward to Earth Day. 95% of this resolution I completely agree with. A little bit of it I do not. The ideology that it supports, I don't necessarily agree with that. The direction that we're pushing in our state with our environmental goals, I do not support that. The things that we're talking about with this resolution, I support enough of them that I will support this resolution today, but I continue to say that we need to look to better things and to less drastic measures and to more real and true information and data for the things that we push. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the following bills be made special orders on March 30, 2026 at 1038 a.m. House Bill 1330, House Bill 1300, Senate Bill 47, Senate Bill 25, Senate Bill 14, House Bill 1318, House Bill 1313, Senate Bill 76, Senate Bill 58, Senate Bill 31, and Senate Bill 87.

It is Senate Bill 53.

Members, please restate the motion.

Mr Schiebel please read the title of House Bill 1330 House Bill 1330 by Representatives Woodrow and Soper concerning the operational parameters of entertainment districts

Thank you. To the Transportation Committee report. Thank you. Members, we'll hear more about the bill in a moment. In committee, we had a very good discussion. We heard that there are some public safety concerns working with our law enforcement partners through the stakeholding process. We ran an amendment to make clear that in adopting new rules for the entertainment districts, the city council or border county commissioners is required to consult with the county sheriff and any municipal police department that has jurisdiction in order for there to be coordination with respect to public safety. We ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on the Transportation Committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Transportation Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. The report passes. To the bill. Representative Soper.

Representative Woodrow.

Thank you. Thank you. I also ask that to be properly displayed Technical details. Thank you. Oh, yeah. You can have the amendment read at link. Give everyone an opportunity to hear it. Yeah. Okay. The amendment is properly displayed before us. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-009 to House Bill 1330. All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed? The amendment passes. Representative Woodrow.

The amendment is properly before us. Please proceed.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-007? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-007 to House Bill 1330. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. amendment 007 passes

Representative Soper.

Representative Brooks.

Representative DeGraff.

The amendment is properly before us. Please proceed.

And members, I would like to point out the irony of the amendment. This is a bill all about local control, and the amendment is about the state telling a local government that we are going to repeal your local authority in three years' time and force you to have to go back to the table, spend more of your local taxpayer monies if you want to keep that entertainment district alive. It should be left to the local government to decide whether or not they want to have an entertainment district and whether they want to keep it alive. It shouldn't be up to the state saying in 2026 that come 2029, we're going to automatically force that local government to have to go back to the table, engage the citizens once again. They certainly would have had the opportunity of notice because it has to be published for three weeks to be able to even hear whether or not there's going to be a local liquor license issued within the district. So there's ample time for someone who wanted to object. I mean, that's the process that we live by. So I'd ask for a no vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-008? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-008 to House Bill 1330. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The amendment does not pass. Any more discussion on House Bill 1330? Hearing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1330 as amended. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say nay. House Bill 1330 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1300.

Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1300 in the Transportation Housing Local Government Committee report.

Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, we had a really good discussion on this bill in committee, working with the affordable housing stakeholder crew. We put some guardrails on what affordable housing means in this context. It requires consultation with local housing agencies and the local governing entity responsible for conducting the regional and local housing needs assessments that we passed a couple sessions ago. We ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L002 and ask that it be properly displayed. Thank you.

This was one that was brought to us by the special districts. They wanted to make sure that in addition to adding affordable housing, that there was a mechanism that if they chose to move out of that market, that they could do so. And so this just reiterates what really is current law, but belts and suspenders. Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, House Bill 1300 applies only to the 35 special district hospital districts within our state. Being involved with one, I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that one thing we talk a lot about is really the nexus between having housing next to the hospital and people who would live there, whether we're talking those who have certain long-term health needs, that being able to be closer to the hospital is really about life or death, whether we're talking employee workforce housing from traveling doctors or traveling nurses. But unlike all the other special districts that we have in our state, hospital districts are the ones that actually see a majority of their budget comes from non-taxpayer dollars. So a hospital district is able to collect revenue from a property tax and from a sales tax if it's been voted on by the people. But they also provide a service, health care services. So they will bill insurance, maybe public or private insurance. And the lion's share, usually 90% to 95% of the hospital's operating budget, will come from insurance. Then the remaining 5% to 10% is from the taxpayer's share. That's the non-operating revenue that comes into the system. And because there's this sliver of the budget that comes from non-operating revenue or taxpayer revenue, hospitals are permitted from, or not permitted, I should say, from owning a condo. or apartment building. And that's quite challenging, because if we were talking any other special district, by far the majority of their budget comes from tax dollars. This body adopted a bill last year to allow school districts to do the exact same thing. And once again, it's about choice. Either the district chooses or they don't choose. It comes down to that. This just adds the option for them to do this. I can tell you out of the 35 healthcare districts, the reality is probably only two are in a position to do this. The rest are too close in their margins or too tight of margins usually less than five or ten days cash on hand And you can really look to a new service item if your finances are that tight But for the two that have much better margins, this is an option, and one that could help the community and help with health outcomes. And I'd ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, very excited to be back up for Part 2 of Woodrow and Soper Dablin Districts. House Bill 26-1300 deals with health services districts. And for those who might be unaware, a health service district is a special district and political subdivision of the state governed by an elected board with the powers to tax or assess fees for services. Health services districts are created to fill gaps in county and municipal services related to providing health care and emergency services. Colorado currently has anywhere between 29 and 35 health services districts, and they're located primarily on unincorporated county land. Under current law, a material modification in service requires a special district to petition the local governing body that approved its formation for approval of the change. What this bill does is it allows a health service district to provide affordable housing services without the change being considered a material modification or departure from its approved service plan so long as a majority of the elected board of directors of the district approves the addition. Colleagues, you're probably already aware that disparities in household income and where folks are considered housing burdened, that's where they spend over 30% or even 50% of their income on housing, has a tremendous impact on the regional strain on a health care system. Financial strain induces chronic stress, leading to hypertension, anxiety, and depression. High-cost drain resources for other health-promoting needs like nutritious food and medical care. Substandard housing conditions are directly linked to respiratory diseases like asthma, cardiovascular issues, and unintentional injuries, particularly among children and the elderly. Also, frequent moves in homelessness are associated with worse self-rated health, developmental delays in children, and disruptions to health care continuity. So what this bill does is it cuts red tape and it allows health services districts to promote affordable housing within the health services district in an effort to reduce strain on the health system. It's a good bill. We ask for an aye vote.

Chair, thank you. I suppose all good things must come to an end, including the enthusiasm for that dynamic duo. I was a no on this in committee. I shall remain a no now for a number of reasons. First, I believe that there is some ability for hospitals to be able to get into space without necessarily going to this level. And then also the piece of it that, which I find to be beautifully ironic, is that the first bill that the sponsors ran really kind of spoke to supporting local control, really spoke to the respect of local control. However, this piece, if I'm not mistaken, this bill actually is more administratively approved when it comes to the special districts, which actually is disrespectful and circumvents local control because there is no public process involved when you're talking about administrative approvals. So I would still as I was in committee urge a no vote Is there any further discussion Representative Garcia

My question is really around for whom is this housing? And I was speaking with one of the bill sponsors about it. I guess I still would like to have more clarification on if our hospitals can buy housing just to have in their back pockets for rental housing for anybody, or is this specifically for traveling medical personnel or if you're in an area where you need to provide housing to supplement income or supplement more or less income for people to be able to afford to live in that community or is this just buying housing to have and hold? Representative Soper.

Excellent questions. Several questions in there. So it's not specific to workforce housing. This could be any affordable housing as it's broadly defined within the bill. It would allow a hospital special district to be able to buy a condo and rent it out. they could do so to an individual who perhaps has long-term health needs and they need to be near the hospital, but they could also buy a condo unit or build one and be able to use that for a traveling doctor or for a traveling nurse or, as my co-prime mentioned earlier, someone who perhaps is homeless and this is an opportunity to get them on their feet, they could also use it for that. So it's very broad in terms of the scope. And I will say the prohibition on a hospital-owning housing is only a construct of the fact that they take a sliver of their budget from tax dollars. If they were any other hospital, they would have no restriction. And so all the other hospitals in our state, and we have a lot more than 35, they can already buy and sell housing if they want. They can also turn to other non-operational revenue to be able to make money for their hospital. There was a great article in the Colorado Sun back in January of this year that talked about how the bulk of Colorado's hospitals made their margin from non-operating revenue. And a lot of that came from not delivering health care but from investments. It could be real estate investments, securities investments, but they certainly didn't just make it from health care. So this could be one other opportunity for our special district hospitals to compete with the fully private sector hospitals. I put that in air quotes because I still view us as being just like them, aside from that tiny sliver that can be anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of your total budget coming from the taxpayers.

Thank you Madam Chair So I going to ask the bill sponsors As part of the bill, it says that the bill expands a revision to provide that the addition of affordable housing services to a health service district service plan is not a material modification or departure from the district's approved service plan, along as the majority of the board of directors of the district affirmatively votes to approve the addition, blah, blah, blah. So with this bill, will the group or the hospital, whoever is providing this affordable housing plan, are they able to petition for or obtain any type of government money, taxpayer money to help assist in any payment or purchase or anything to do or put towards this housing for affordable housing?

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's an excellent question. So it really comes down to business and what sort of a deal the board of directors, along with their administrator, could put together to be able to build this. So, for example, being a special district, you don't pay property taxes. So that's actually one element that helps you already with being able to be attractive to an investor who probably is going to put up the cash. You might be in an opportunity zone or an enterprise zone. So that's another opportunity for a cash partner to be able to develop. Well, a hospital is not going to go out on their own and take their cash and put it on the line. Instead, they're going to find a developer. They're going to partner with them because the hospital would have the real estate and the developer would be able to build the capital. And you'd have to follow, of course, the requisites that are set out in here. But that only comes after the board of directors approve going in this direction.

Thank you for that. So here's my concern, and maybe I'm reading the bill incorrectly. You're saying now they're exempt from property taxes where everybody else has to pay property taxes. But here, so is it possible that a business entity could come in or this hospital, So whoever's providing this affordable housing or affordable entities or places to be, are they then able to rent it out afterwards to like a leering center or a possible fraudulent business that we have seen across the United States with the fraudulent businesses saying they are doing this, but they're really not doing this? does that open this up to something like that where they're able to do that? Representative Soper.

I mean, a business can always be defrauded by a con artist. What I will say is a board of directors has to go through their due diligence. They will have their corporate counsel review any contracts. The property tax piece applies to all governments. So a special district is a government entity just like the state or your local municipality or the county. They are all government entities and don't pay property tax because of that. On top of that, all 35 special district hospitals are also nonprofits. So that's also on top of that. But if, I mean, they're both a government and a nonprofit. In terms of, oh, like any sort of fraud that could occur, yeah, they would have to do their due diligence. In terms of renting out to someone who was a, like a fraudulent business, I mean, you have to vet who you're renting to, and under the prescribes of the bill, it's for affordable housing and so that that person would need to be you know fitting within the definition if the special district went down this path representative woodrow thank you madam chair and just to drill

a little bit more broadly as the planning financing acquisition construction reconstruction or repair maintenance management and operation of affordable housing related projects or programs which you know as the good representative pointed out what does that mean can you rent out to someone are you going to be managing and operating these properties as sort of a landlord and what we did in the committee report with our amendment in committee is we actually scaled back that definition so it's now just the financing acquisition construction reconstruction or rehabilitation so that struck out the repair maintenance management or operation and so you're They're not going to have the situation where the health services district is managing a property and needs to take extra special precautions on who they're renting it out to because they're not going to be in the position of a landlord. This is more to promote the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, and that's kind of my concern. As we've seen, like, in Minneapolis and other places in California, Yeah. I just want to, I don't see any provisions in here that would prevent it from being fraudulently used in a way where it's, you know, taxpayers are now paying for it. There's no property taxes, and it's like a triple dip. It's not a double dip. for me it seems like this could be abused and in a triple dip way where now we've got people who are not only having taxpayers pay for it but in a fraudulent way that they're getting away with now no property taxes and I just don't see any protections in this bill. Can you point them out? Representative Woodrow. Yes, thank you. Going back to the committee report, there was an amendment run to make clear that the services being provided must be carried out in coordination with local public housing entities including the local public housing authorities local housing agencies and the local government entity responsible for conducting the regional or local housing needs assessments so this is not a free-for-all this isn't a blank check do what you will with these funds it has to be done in coordination with the folks who are on the ground doing great work in our communities on affordable housing you know i would point out to the good representative that that nearly every housing bill I run in this chamber, I am told that local governments are doing a fantastic job, that local housing authorities are doing a fantastic job, and if I would just get out of their way and let them operate, we could cure our affordable housing crisis in the state. And so I agree that we have tremendous faith and confidence on our local housing authorities not to allow the fraud, waste, mismanagement, or abuse that the good representative is pointing to. I appreciate her concern. and I think we've addressed it in the committee report.

OK Thank you Madam Chair So when I was a county commissioner our hospital came to us and they wanted to do a $20 million expansion. And so what they did was they had already had a loan for the expansion they did before, which was $20 million. So that's $40 million if you add it together. And so they had the county, if they would co-sign and be on the bond for the hospital. This is what my concern is about the bill. So they were already overextended with their loan. And then since the county is going to be held liable if they fault on the loan, what happens if the hospital district goes ahead and builds a bunch of these homes for another $5, $10 million, which would put that on top, and then they run into financial trouble, and they would default. So then that would actually put the county in jeopardy as well on the loan, because they are the first in line for the $40 million on the hospital. So can one of the sponsors address that issue?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my good colleague from Montezuma County. Excellent question. A county doesn't have to sign on as a cosigner or even as a lender to a special district hospital. more often than not they may choose not to. Counties don't necessarily have a lot of funds at the end of the day and they wouldn't want to put the county coffers at risk by being a co-signer. So I would think that oftentimes you wouldn't see a county signing on. You could have a possibility where I could see the hospital district and the county and perhaps the local municipality all working together because then all three are not prohibited from this space. So it might be that the hospital brings the land to the table. The county may be able to pull down some federal dollars and the municipality may have a private investor that they're partnering with through the zone in which the units are going to be built in. I mean, I could see something like that happening as a financial arrangement. But in terms of what's the risk to the special district, the board of directors of the special district are going to have to act as fiduciaries like they do every single day. And they make decisions every single day that could put the hospital in harm's way or it could make the hospital a few extra dollars. and they have this fiduciary responsibility to the organization. And if at the end of the day the board of directors views this as being something that would put the organization at risk, the board of directors has a legal responsibility to disengage and to not pursue this path. So there's a lot of steps that the board of directors of the special district hospital would have to go through before they would even delve into this. And then as I, you know, I just, while I'm up here, want to talk about my colleague from El Paso County one comment she made that I didn answer which was these aren going to be entirely taxpayer projects because only a small sliver of the hospital non revenue comes from the taxpayers. That's either from a property tax, a sales tax, or both. So those funds are probably not enough to be able to fully pay for building a series of apartments, for example. So they're going to either turn to their operating revenue, assuming they have a margin, and use some of that as well, or I'd say 99% of the time they're going to turn to some other financial backer, whether it's a private lender, whether it's another government entity, but someone else is also going to be involved, not just the hospital district. I would say that what the hospital district would bring to the table is the real estate.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the sponsors for bringing this. I understand what you're trying to get to. I still remain concerned with the carving out of taking on a new mission outside of the core mission of providing health services as non-material. I know it was explained, but I know you do require coordination with the entity that did the housing needs assessment. That's generally the county if it's within a county area. So all other special districts, if they add a service that wasn't contemplated in their service plan, that is material, go back to that originating local government that then gave their stamp and moved on to the courts for formation. I just think it would be more appropriate to continue having that check. And I recognize the requirements and the duties that are on the hospital boards, but the commissioners in those areas also have a duty and a responsibility to make sure that all of these actions are somewhat coordinated. And I think having that one check of saying, hey, this is a new service, it truly is material, is necessary. So I am a no, still a soft no. I hope that can still be addressed in the Senate if this moves forward.

Thank you, Chair. So what I get out of this is a new tax. So let's go through this. Any health service district that is created pursuant to this article, in accordance with this article, shall have the power upon approval by the eligible electors, and those eligible electors are those electors who are registered to vote. Now, I'm not sure how you know they're registered to vote. But that's the definition of an eligible elector, that they are registered to vote. That would usually come with some sort of qualification like an identification. The eligible electors of a district to levy and collect a uniform sales tax. So this bill puts in motion the ability for these new districts created pursuant to this article to levy a sales tax So we have housing that unaffordable and I do appreciate the sponsors noting that property tax is making housing unaffordable So now you going to give a district, you're going to give this collusion between government and you're going to create this enterprise where now the government is at an advantage to purchase property and for housing, not for the needs of their mission, but for the needs of their financial. And this is key because we have the housing, and this is, well, this departure is distinct from an approved plan, but it's not very much. And this very small departure from the housing health service district and what it is, a health service district created pursuant to this article operate directly or interrate through lease or to form other parties or other arrangements, public hospitals, convalescent centers, nursing care facilities, intermediate care facilities, emergency facilities, community service clinics, or other facilities providing health and personal care services and may organize, own, operate, control, directly manage or contract or furnish ambulance. So that's a health service district. And so what this bill is saying that from that, because there's a nexus from housing to health, and there is, that we are going to say that it is a very small adjustment for these organizations that were established to run public hospitals, convalescent centers, nursing care facilities, intermediate care facilities, emergency facilities, community clinics, and other facilities providing health and personal care services. we're going to extend their charter just a smidge. And in that smidge, we will find planning, financing, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, management, and operation of affordable housing-related projects without needing to seek approval for material modification or departure from the district's approval service plan. Just a smidge. and that smidge is considered not a material modification. And we know it's not a material modification because the sponsors put it right here in the bill and said adjusting and adding to all of the things that you would expect a health care district to do, like run convalescent center, nursing care facilities, intermediate care facilities, emergency facilities, community clinics, other facilities, that all of a sudden now it's not a material modification to put them into planning, financing, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, management, or operation of affordable housing. And what is affordable housing to not be burdened? is a household income where your rent or house payment is less than 30%. Well, that's a little bit difficult because now it is automatically jumped to 50% allowance, and in order to keep up, everybody's had to go probably closer to 50%, which means they can only require proof of twice the income. This was a bill last year or the year before, as opposed to three times the income, that you have an income three times. your rent. So automatically bills last year put everybody into, most everybody into a category of house burdened because they were allowed to raise the rent by 50% immediately in order to save them money. And now we're going to take it, now we're going to take this and we're going to come around full circle and say, well, that didn't work. So what we're going to do because that didn't work is we are going to add a new tax. So because the government made housing more expensive, with the bills that the sponsor mentioned, pretty sure he was on, that with those bills that the sponsor, or whoever the sponsor happened to be, that made housing more expensive, now we're going to fix that by imposing another tax. Because it's right here. They may levy and collect a uniform sales tax throughout the entire geographic area of the district upon every transaction or other incident with respect to which sales tax is levied. So in order to deal with the increased cost of housing that has been imposed by the government, the government's solution is to charge citizens more tax. and this is just an example of when you give when you expect the people to solve the problem that created the problem you get a bigger problem and this is a bigger problem oh except for cigarettes cigarettes are exempted there's some whole thing that exempts them so we're going to put our hospital districts that we would like to focus on things like emergency facilities communicate community clinics in the provision of health and personal care service. We are going to put them in development mode. We are going to give them a tax advantage by which to compete with the citizens of Colorado. And then they are going to not pay taxes that go to where? Where does property tax go? Maybe my esteemed colleague next will talk about where the property taxes go. But I think they go to schools. And then we say we don't have enough money for schools. And then the first thing that we're going to do is we're going to take money from schools. So in order to make housing affordable, to get rid of the property tax, to create this collusion between government and industry, called fascism, is that we are going to take money from schools. And that's going to solve the housing crisis. It doesn't surprise me at all that the solution to a government-imposed problem is more taxes. Now, we know that 30% of a house, 30% and upwards of 50% of a house is regulation. we know a big chunk of it is property tax we got rid of Gallagher the citizens of Colorado were promised that if Gallagher was gone it would be replaced by something even better was it? nope their property taxes just went up four times that was the government solution and now is that money enough? nope that money is not enough socialists never have enough of other people's money and never will And so the solution of course is to impose yet another tax And then we defined affordable housing I don know why we need an affordable housing and this baffles me a household residing in housing, a household, affordable housing means for a household residing in housing on a rental basis, annual income of the household is at or below 120% of the area median income and 120% 120% for those watching at home is going to be a theme of a bill coming up later. So there's something about this 120% AMI that this year's DSA has latched onto. And I'm not really sure what it is because everybody in Colorado is hurting under the burdens of the Colorado legislature, so I'm not sure why 120% AMI. But 120% AMI seems to be a theme, and we'll come back to it again later today. of the area median income of households of that size, so now we have to track, now the government has to track the AMI, has to track the family size in the county to which the housing is located. Now, I don't know, I'm going to guess this has a zero fiscal note. Sure enough, this has a zero fiscal note. Shazam. Zero fiscal note again. Does anybody think that you can make sure that affordable, how are you going to define affordable housing without having all of those metrics? All that data compiled, processed, digested? There's a fiscal note. We'll find out what it is later. Or for a household residing in housing on a home ownership basis, an annual income of the household at or below 120% AMI of the area median income, 120% of the AMI, of households of that size in the county to which the housing, wow. Why don't we just get rid of a lot of the duplicative regulation? Why don't we just decrease energy costs in the state? Why don't we just stop spending $700 million on green grift in the state and actually deal with the cost of housing? If you stop trying to bolster the investor-focused utilities bottom line, you could take that $700 million per year and you could offset a bit of taxation on the citizens of Colorado. You could. You won't, but you could. You could make housing less – you could make it more affordable. You could deal with this property tax. Instead, you're going to give this bill, we'll give developers, this is a bill for developers, a tax on citizens, a prop for developers. Because all they have to do is coordinate with them and they can build in for the greater good. And we know from history that for the greater good never is. But then they can keep that development money going. And because it's driven from the state, a little something-something comes back to the state or the people running the state. So instead of fixing the issues of this body driving up the costs of housing, the plan is to throw us out to developers, an extra tax to the citizens of Colorado, and say look we solved your problem And now we distracted the housing district So is this going to be the same board No They're going to have to bring on more bodies to do this, whether unelected or unelected, that they're going to have to deal with this stuff. Do you think that the people that are running hospitals, emergency care facilities, community clinics, other facilities, providing health care, I mean, unless they were just an incredibly redundant and unnecessary function of the government, which is highly likely, it seems a little bit odd to throw on them planning, financing, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance management, and other non-material modifications to their job description. Now, if you had one job description and they added the second to that, would you consider that non-material? Or would you ask for a raise? They're going to ask for a raise. And how is that raise going to come? It's going to come from taxes. It's going to come from taxes on the citizens of Colorado. So this bill is a ginormous tax. How ginormous? Don't know. But it is a tax. So I move L-003 to House Bill 1300 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Chair. So the district affirmatively votes to approve the addition of, so let's go back to the beginning here. In the case of a health service district, the addition of affordable housing units as defined in that CSR to the services provided by the district is not a material modification or departure from the district's approved service plan so long as a majority of the board member directors to a district affirmatively votes to approve the addition of so long as the majority of the board of directors affirmatively votes to approve the addition of affordable housing units. services. So they're voting presumably upon themselves or whoever they, with whom they would contract to do this, most likely contract, because these do have a great cost. And I am curious on how the, how you're going to assume, well, the sponsor already said these are not going to necessarily go to housing doctors. There's always the thing about we need housing for doctors and nurses and teachers and firefighters. And none of these bills can guarantee that they're going to because that's illegal in Colorado. There's lots of people that would love to be able to limit their rentals to one group or another because that's who they choose to support. But the greater good decided earlier that that was not going to be. So what we're going to do is we're going to, after services, strike services, and then add, or just add behind services, and in the case of the addition of affordable housing services, the eligible electors of the district vote to approve the addition of affordable housing at a general or special election. Because right now you have local control and that local control is under the housing. You're going to form a house, a hospital district or a healthcare service district. And that health service district is going to have a majority of the board of directors and they are going to vote to approve the addition of affordable housing units. And so that is a, that is a big, that's a big leap for the citizens of Colorado so what would happen here is the district to vote to approve the addition of affordable housing services at a general or special election Because what they would have to be doing at this special election is they would have to essentially be voting to approve this new tax envisioned by the sponsors to be, because we're talking about created pursuant to this article, have the power upon approval of the eligible electors, by the eligible electors, to levy a uniform sales tax throughout the entire geographic area of the district upon every transaction or other incident with respect to which sales tax is collected. So this is just to make sure that the, because otherwise you're going to set up a health service district. and say we're going to set up a health service district to deal with community care, hospitals, ambulance service, and then probably not going to tell them that it's going to deal with planning, financing, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or repair of affordable units, which will be purchased by the state at an advantage of no sale, of no property tax in order to tax the citizens of Colorado. So I ask for an aye vote on this amendment and a no bill on the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we're going to ask for a no vote, and I'll tell you why. First of all, this is more restrictive than current law. Second of all, two of my favorite amendments, one is the Second Amendment, the other one is the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that's within our state constitution, and that requires that any tax increase or the creation of a tax must go to a vote of the voters. And that includes property tax, that includes sales tax, any other uniform tax that can exist must go to a vote of the people. So if a health services district is going to increase, for example, their mill levy, they would have to go to a vote of the people. The people can already weigh in on that. Secondarily, to address some of the points that were just made here, we're talking as if a health care district gets 100% of their budget from the taxpayers. That's not true. We're talking maybe 5%, possibly 10% max that they're receiving from the taxpayers. So what if you were to use the 90% of your operational revenue as part of this? I mean, would that be okay? Because it didn't come from the taxpayers. The only limitation on a hospital district from going into this space is the fact that they receive this tiny sliver in their budget from the taxpayers. Otherwise, they would be able to act like any other business and you're not restricted explicitly to what your core competencies are. I mean, look at any company out there. They do certain things because it's ideal and optimal at that particular time to do so. I mean, being able to own workforce housing makes a lot more sense than having to rent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And as far as being fiscally responsible to the taxpayers, why are we locking in a hospital to renting Why don't we let them buy and actually own that real estate? Instead, that's fiscally irresponsible to say that you have to rent in this space, you can't buy in this space. And then it's also fiscally irresponsible to say, okay, you have to continue to rent in this space, but if you have the mechanism to generate a few dollars, we're not talking a lot, but a few dollars back into the hospital, why wouldn't you do so? That could mean that you don't have to go back to the taxpayers. That could mean that you don't delete a service item because every single special district hospital in the state is contemplating what service item they're going to have to cut, especially as we're going into the next years. So, yes, I do want our special district hospitals to be creative in what they can do without raising taxes. And this bill does exactly that. it's a win-win situation. It allows locals to have another option as far as where to live, but it's in consultation with the local governments that are within the special district. It also means that the special district could be creative on another business line item. It means they could save money on what they're already spending on rents. All this contributes to the bottom line, or decreasing the bottom line, I should say. So certainly, to address the points that were just made, members, I hope you will once again consider voting yes. Thank you. And no on the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the way that I look at this bill is it actually hurts my community members. So where I live, the majority of the homes, we have a lot of traveling nurses. We have a lot of resident doctors. A lot of people rent homes from my community members that own those homes. And so now we are creating, and by the way, I believe every post office in the United States is rented, if I'm not correct. They're not owned by the federal government. They are rented from the federal government. So the three best-paying jobs where I live is Kinder Morgan, which produces CO2 that they pump 500 miles down to the Pyramid Basin to push out oil. CO2 is where the largest CO2 dumber in the world is. The second is the utility company, the electric company. They have the second best-paying jobs. and the third best paying jobs is paid by the hospital we love our hospital and we love those high paying jobs and because they are paid such a good wage they are able to go out into my local community and they are able to rent those homes for my community members so that they can uh make a living with those rentals and so this here is actually going to in my opinion hurt my uh community members. Second of all, I used to have a landscape company. A lady had a 600-acre farm. She bought a home. She wanted me to, right by the hospital, and she wanted me to landscape it. And I said, I don't understand why you're, why are you leaving? You're 18 miles or 20 miles from the hospital. Why are you buying this house right next to the hospital She said well because I 75 years old and I know that I going to be needing to be close to that hospital when something goes wrong with me And so she took the initiative not the government to live closer to the hospital when something goes wrong She didn't have to have the hospital district tell her that. She didn't have to have the county commissioners tell her that. She did that on her own. And then the third thing is I was on the housing authority board in the county, and that housing authority paid one of the highest paid jobs besides a lawyer in our community was the director of the housing authority. And so what her job was was to organize all of these new buildings for affordable housing in our community. And so what I'm seeing here is the representative from El Paso made a very good point is they are going to have to hire somebody like our housing director that has experience on building these complexes for affordable housing. And then the third thing about special districts, when I was a county commissioner, we had a special district. The state of Colorado came down, and they said, your special district, it was a $240,000 a year budget, and it was a mosquito district. It was a special district that the taxpayers paid to take care of the mosquito control in our counties. And they came to us, and they said, your special district has not had an election in six years. In six years. And so the county commissioners have to go to the special district and have them start having elections. When we first went to the special district, this board that just didn't have the elections, they just stayed on the board, we got in a big fight and it ended up to where the special district dissolved and moved. So I'm very concerned that we are taking the job that is already being done by this high-paid housing authority director. We're going to move it to our hospital district, have to hire a new employee. Their job is to nursing homes and the urgent cares and the medical where you get your oxygen when you're in the hospital. They do a very good job of that. Let's keep that scope there so that the quality of health care is going to be top-notch because they're not worried about if they got such-and-such done on the foundation or whatnot for building the housing. And so that's why I'm up here. I'm concerned that we're getting out of the scope of what the function of the housing district is. And then where's it going to stop? What's the next form of government that we're going to get to with it? Thank you.

Thank you, Sharon. I appreciate the sponsor taking the time to explain a few things, and then especially on the tax, because the health districts already, as he's saying, the health districts have this ability. But if you're going to start diverting money from the tax, then it seems like we're saying that we already have too much tax that's being collected for those other functions. And then we're going to take that money and then we're going to invest it in this housing speculation. And to make it profitable, we're going to cut back so that they can buy these properties with the advantage of them not having property tax. That lack of property tax is still going to not contribute to the school boards or to the schools and that tax is going to have to be raised on somebody And then we have the redundancy of the housing districts themselves So I do appreciate what the sponsor is trying to do in trying to make housing more affordable, but I think we would be better spending our time going back and looking at how this room is making housing unaffordable and figuring out how we can unfubar the market that we've fubarred in order to bring it back in alignment with the free market principles. It's primarily the diversion from the free market principles that housing has gone completely awry. You know, we're adding with asbestos regulations, we're adding $20 to $40 million per year to the cost of housing. We're adding through duplicative regulation, we're adding 30 to 40 percent or more of the actual housing price. We're not changing those things. We're not materially addressing them. We're trying to do these little fixes around the side. And, again, when the people that made the problem solve the problem, you just get a bigger problem. And while I appreciate the efforts, I think this is just going to lead to a bigger problem.

Aye.

No. No.

Aye.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to SB 26-047. Senate Bill 47 by Senators Danielson and Marchman, also Representatives Camacho and Phillips, concerning changes to the definition of a general election for the purpose of submitting a question to the voters to allow firefighters to collectively bargain with their public employers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to serve with you.

Colleagues, today we bring forward a straightforward but important bill that I would like to move before I discuss it. I would like to move Senate Bill 2647.

Now I'd like to finish with my explanation, if you don't mind. Today we are bringing forward a straightforward bill, but an important bill that ensures our election laws work as intended and that firefighters have a fair and functional path to collective bargaining. Under current law, firefighters and their communities can petition to place a question on the ballot to allow collective bargaining under the Colorado Firefighter Safety Act. However, there is ambiguity in how general election is defined, which can create confusion about when the questions can actually appear before voters. This bill clarifies that definition, specifically to ensure that a ballot question related to firefighter collective bargaining can be placed on coordinated elections, including certain statewide general elections in odd number of years, consistent with the uniform election code. What this means in practice is simple. Communities that have done the work, gathered the signatures, engaged voters, and followed the law will have a clear and predictable opportunity to bring those questions forward. At its core, this bill is about fairness and access to the democratic process. firefighters put their lives online for our communities every day ensuring they have a clear pathway to vote on collective bargaining is a reasonable and responsible step this legislation does not mandate collective bargaining It simply ensures that voters have a clear opportunity to decide and we respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Thank you. SB 26047, this is just a technical but necessary update to Colorado law that improves clarity, consistency, and fairness in how ballot questions are administered for firefighter collective bargaining, and we ask for your yes vote.

Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. So in general, I have to admit that I'm not a big fan. Expanding, involving the government into labor policy on a local level, not a fan. There are some other things, though, here that concern me as the way that the bill is written and the loophole that still exists in Colorado law, that I understand we really ought to be looking more than just this policy at trying to close that loophole and trying to fix what I believe, and we've been paying attention in the news to something that has come up and exposed the loophole, exposed the problem behind it. However, to this bill, I want to be able to bring just a little glimpse of how we might be able to help close that problem, help address the loophole that does exist. Therefore, I don't want to build up any more anticipation or drama to the conversation. I want to be able to get right to it because I know you all are hanging on the edge of your seat. I move L003 to SB047 has to be properly displayed.

Chair, thank you. The amendment. No money collected from taxes may be used for the purpose of influencing the electors to vote yes or no on the question of whether the public employer shall be obligated to engage in collective bargaining pursuant to Part 2. I want to kind of frame this up just a little bit, if you'll allow me. In regards to local tax increase ballot measures, this, of course, is not, but I want to be very clear that there is a history here that I'm speaking to that does also speak to this particular loophole. Colorado law does contain a significant loophole that allows local governments to spend unlimited taxpayer. Those are really bad words next to each other. Unlimited and taxpayer funds. If I don't have your attention already, oh my goodness. It allows local governments to spend unlimited taxpayer money on political consultants in order to craft ballot measures before they are placed on the ballot. Now, once they've been placed on the ballot, that's a different story. But unlimited taxpayer money to craft measures before they go on the ballot. This has been something that has been in the news. You can look it up, actually, if you would like. This practice has greatly expanded in the last few years. Its property tax revenue available to local governments has exploded. It did happen in Jefferson County. That might help your search. A political consulting group campaigned for the elimination, Jefferson County, of Tabor revenue caps. This is just history, again, to explain the dangerous loophole that we have. It passed in 2024, despite the fact that voters had turned it back twice in five years. A similar story played out in Arapahoe County, lest you believe that this is just a Jefferson County problem. If this bill passes, it's reasonable to assume that local governments around the state can or will actually pursue similar strategies and use unlimited taxpayer money to campaign for more taxpayer money unless the loophole is closed. So really what this does is this closes that to ensure that it's not malfeasance, that you're not using taxpayer money in order to try to game a vote ahead of time. Once it's on the ballot, can't do that. But why would taxpayer money be allowed to be used to craft the language ahead of time to where you know that it can influence the outcome of the vote? Those are your dollars. This closes that loophole for this policy. I will tell you that it's a much bigger problem that I believe should be addressed by this body, maybe perhaps soon to come. We can only work right now to close the loophole in this policy, and I would ask for an aye vote on this amendment.

Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Chair. I request, I think, an aye vote on this as appropriate. The money of the citizens should not be spent on this. There are basically unlimited funds that can be used to, and what goes into that prior to getting on the ballot, in the language, in the marketing, in the research, what all can happen in that time? and so it puts the citizens at a disadvantage when you might effectively look at obviously the firefighting is a great service I mean we owe them a great deal but we don't owe and I think in general the citizens want to make sure the fire department is taken care of and if we want to actually take care of the fire department I think what we need to do is we need to make sure that the local funds are available and we need to stop siphoning them off at the state level and allow more of these things to happen at the local level. So using taxpayer funds to be able to lobby, to be able to craft the language, to be able to do whatever leading up to a ballot initiative in order to influence more tax dollars is I think is something that should be limited in this loophole. that loophole should be closed. It should be closed in general, but this is a good opportunity to close it in one specific example. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleague from Douglas County for bringing this forward. I appreciate the intent of the amendment. I do think there's further discussion to be had on this. However, we're going to ask for a no vote for a simple reason. The language of this amendment is simply too broad, and use of taxpayer money to influence a yes or no vote could also implicate the blue book because in your blue book there is a description of what is yes and what is no And I think this language is probably too broad and probably should be done in a separate conversation so we respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment.

Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. I don't know what to do with the last word. I'm not used to having that. I will argue back just a little bit. The variance between the word influence and then with the blue book, that should be, of course, educate. So I don't know that this would necessarily be something that goes to the blue book because the blue book is for educational, right, to educate the voters, not necessarily influence. However, if you're spending, say, oh, I don't know, let me come up with a number, $340,000 specific to try to influence a vote, then that's going into a different area. Now, there are some things with which I can agree as far as the pushback, perhaps maybe being a little bit too broad, but certainly can agree with the piece of I believe that this is part of a larger conversation that I hope to be able to have at some point. because, again, this is speaking to this policy specifically, but there is a loophole here that is much larger than just this policy that we need to address. I still, however, would ask for an aye vote on this. Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Chair. And, of course, here, again, we're talking about prior to influencing the electors to vote yes or no on the question. And the blue book, of course, is what that's going out with, that should be going out with the ballots, and it should be written in a, it should be prior to a bill a couple days ago, it should be written in language that's neutral. And so it's not going to, the blue book should be written, or used to be in the past prior to this year's legislation, that it would be written in a manner that is neutral on the effects of voting yes or no, so that people could know. So since it is voting, since it is educating on both yes and no, I'd say the blue book is as required by Tabor, which is a good thing, which is the only reason that the citizens of Colorado get the education on these ballot initiatives, is that that is not an influence. I agree with my colleague. That would be an education because it should be a neutral publication.

No.

Yes, sir. Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Chair. So I just wanted to talk everyone's favorite, FDR. Reading your letter as of 14 July 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships. Organizations of government employees have a logical place in government affairs The desire of government employees for fair and adequate pay reasonable hours of work safe and suitable working conditions development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organizations, on their part, to present their views on such matter is both logical and natural. But meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationship and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people who speak by means of laws and acted by their representatives in Congress accordingly. administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted by laws, which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the Federal Service rest the obligation to serve the whole people whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in their conduct of government activities. This obligation is paramount, since their own services have to do with the functioning of government. A strike of public employees manifests as nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking towards the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is therefore with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the Constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees, the provision that under no circumstances shall the Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States government. I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees, the 20th anniversary of its founding, and trust that the convention will in every way be successful very sincerely. So what he's saying is that all government employees should realize the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has a distinct and incertable limitations when applied to the public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to fully represent or bind. And the ability to engage in those. So at its heart, we have a little bit of it, ironically, with FDR here. And you have to look at the nature. And do I think the firefighters, do they need adequate living? Do they need adequate wages? 100%. Is this the proper way to do it? I'm not so sure. I think we need to have county commissioners. We need to have those individuals that have the funds of the people of Colorado we need to have them looking out for the best interests of their firefighters I mean, they are effectively, they're in that position, they're elected, and they are serving the public in that same capacity. Now, what we have is a problem of priorities, and we have not funding them appropriately. Well, that's a local issue. but it's a very dangerous thing when we as FDR notes here and should be noted that I am not in any way shape or form against unions I don't think the argument that they're un-American is true because you can note that the United States is a union of states but we have to be very careful in the nature of the collective bargaining because you cannot because it is the individuals that have taken this oath to serve the community So with that, I ask to move L-004 to Senate Bill 047 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you. This bill changes the definition of a general election for the purpose of determining when a question may be added to the ballot to include a statewide and general election in odd number year only if it qualifies as a coordinated election as defined in the uniform election. This just changes that the question may be submitted only at a regularly scheduled election of the affected political subdivision at which a majority of the electors who reside within the jurisdiction may vote. so the odd number years the odd votes the in the odd numbers years yes they would be they would be qualified as a coordinated election but there's that is also a generally an election that we should avoid and it generally has low turnout so to have a major a major part of the bill be directed or seemingly directed i should say to be put in an odd number year only means that this bill would have this idea, this presentation to the taxpayers, to the citizens of Colorado, to the citizens of a municipality, would have minimal participation. So putting it in an odd year is an odd thing to do because you're actually encouraging minimum participation. and if a petition signed to at least 5% of the regular numbers have voted who voted in the last regular municipal election. So this just takes it back and it puts it, let's put it in a regular election. If you're going to put it before the citizens of Colorado, let's make sure that it has the maximum view. if you want to actually if you're actually representing them don't put it in an odd number year for the purposes of putting it in an odd number year which effectively ensures that minimum eyeballs are on this minimum consideration is going to be put into this and this is a very big issue for the citizens of Colorado this is something that deals with the health safety and welfare of all Coloradans and it should be dealt with by all Coloradans, not relegated to a minor election.

Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. Thank you for bringing the amendment. I think the idea is on point because it's trying to clarify, but this amendment reinterpreted ...introduces the ambiguity that this bill is clarifying. The cleanup on this bill is to follow the Uniform Election Code, and this amendment unfollows it. Let's not unfollow the Uniform Election Code. Vote no.

Representative DeGraff. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the baseline of the code itself, But what this does is it clarifies. And what you have with these codes is you have a baseline from which you can build. And it's not a violation of the Uniform Election Code. This is just making sure that the max number of people see this bill, see this issue. You have the historic precedent of FDR saying that this is basically saying that this is something that has a very dangerous potential outcomes for the citizens of Colorado. And so what we're doing, we're not saying anything about the elections in general. This amendment just says, hey, we get it. We get the overall things on the election, but what we really want to do is we want to make sure that this is under the consideration of the maximum number of individuals, not relegated as it might be prone to do for minimum observation of it to a minimum number. So, again, we can build up from the election to make for whatever purposes, And this purpose here is to ensure that the maximum number of citizens are engaged in this process and making sure that because the fire department is ultimately there to serve them. And we need to get, so this puts this in better control of the citizens of Colorado to make sure that what is happening with their money, which is happening with their funds, is what they are actually intending. This is not a minor issue to be relegated to an off year. This is a serious issue. It's a major issue, and it should have the consideration of a major vote, an even-year vote where we discuss the majority of our issues, not cursory issues.

The no's have it.

Representative Sucla. Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand the intent of the bill. I was a firefighter for 12 and a half years, but I was wondering would an unintended consequence, would the firefighters be allowed to strike? That it would be a union. Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. The question was, are the firefighters, would they be able to strike? That's not connected to this bill. like certainly through collective bargaining, those are decisions that they can make, but that's not connected to what... This bill just clarifies the language for putting the collective bargaining on the ballot So it not connected to if they could strike or not Representative DeGraff I think it's a fundamental question to what we're talking about here, is because if you're going to enter into collective bargaining, collective bargaining typically engages the right to strike. So if you're going to say we want to, what we want to do is we want to clarify the language to put this on the ballot. The question is germane. Yeah, it's not addressed in here specifically, but the reason for the question is germane. The reason for it is why we are, that this is a very, that's a very big issue. What happens if the fire department goes on strike? What happens if the police department goes on strike? What happens if all the medical workers go on strike? This is not a matter of convenience. These are issues that we've instituted for life and death. And you can't create a collective bargaining issue. And so this, of course, would go back to the amendment that you struck down, that this is a very serious issue and not one that should be relegated to a minor election for minimum participation. So, yes, the entire question is about whether the fire department can strike. It might not be addressed in here specifically, but it is addressed in here in total. And so if the citizens of Colorado, and maybe it should be, if the citizens of Colorado are going to vote on collective bargaining, they should also be aware that they are voting in, unless you specifically exempt it, the ability to strike. And that is why FDR said this is a very dangerous thing, and it's not something that should be entertained. Now, so for that reason, so I asked for a no vote on the bill. we shouldn't be putting things before the public that puts their welfare and well-being in jeopardy.

Aye.

No.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 25. Senate Bill 25 by Senators Rich and Snyder, also Representative Marshall, concerning land survey monumentation.

It's an honor to serve with you, sir.

To the bill.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 25? Representative Brooks.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before it is the passage of Senate Bill 25. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. Senate Bill 25 is passed.

Thank you. Representative Ryden.

To the bill.

Okay, L-6 is displayed. Representative Ryden.

Is there any discussion on L6? Seeing none, the question before is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. L6 is passed. To the bill. Is there any further discussion? Representative Bottoms.

Representative Bottoms, I'm sorry to interrupt. This bill is about affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, and we would need, I'm sorry, to debate this bill. If you can, please direct your conversations to Senate Bill 14.

Thank you. Representative DeGraff.

Hold on one second. The committee will go into a brief recess. The committee will come back to order Okay discussion on L10 Representative Graff

Representative Raiden.

I'd like to guide that the purpose of this bill is around affirmative defenses of not guilty by reason and insanity. It is not about competency to stand trial. Those are two different legal procedures,

Representative DeGraff, again, that is not within the scope of this bill. I would address your attention to the difference between convicted of and charged with. Your amendment address is being charged with not having gone through a trial in an affirmative defense and then a sentence, or I'm sorry, a disposition of not guilty by mental defect, which is after sentencing.

And so I would, again, return your attention to that, even though the language in your amendment may confuse the two. Okay.

I apologize. Representative DeGraff, I would direct your attention to the last words on line three, which is charged with a crime of violence, not after a criminal disposition.

Exactly, to the bill.

Representative Bradley.

anything that you read to post-conviction. Absolutely.

And I rise in strong support of this amendment Thank you Representative Luck Thank you Madam Chair As we discussing this I wondering if the bill sponsor can clarify So this section is being added as C to subsection five on page seven. And I'm just wondering, I want to have confirmation that parts A and B that are already in the bill, that the standard there is preponderance. Is it the preponderance of the evidence? Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L10. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The no's have it, and Amendment L10 is lost. To the bill. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 14, I believe, as amended. All those in favor say aye. All opposed, no. House Bill or Senate Bill 14, as amended, passes. Madam Majority Leader.

All right. By motion of the majority leader, we're moving House Bill 1318 until after House Bill 1313. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1313.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you.

I move House Bill 1313 and the Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L004 to the Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee report and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. L004 is an additional amendment to the committee report. 13 to 13 already allows local governments to calculate their investments into affordable housing as a proportional share of unit counts starting in 2027. And this amendment allows those same local governments to use the same calculation to qualify for the waiver in the bill for the current reporting period of 2024 to 2026 and local governments have asked for this amendment and are very appreciative of it so I would ask for

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a couple amendments to move to the bill. It's a series of three amendments that essentially accomplish one thing, and that is simply to work with our tribal governments who do not issue building permits and as a result of that would face complications under the bill. What we're doing to respond to that situation is to say that our tribal governments are perpetually qualified to submit projects to DOLA as they have them, so they don't have to pull in that building permit data that they don't have. And so we'll be moving L5, 6, and 7 as a result of that. With that, I move L5 to House Bill 1313 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Speaker Pro Tembace-Nekker. Thank you, Madam Chair. As advertised, this is responsive to requests from our tribal governments to make sure that they can still access 123 funds without having to submit the building permit data. We ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L6 to House Bill 1313 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Representative, Speaker, Pro Tempe Snecker. Thank you, Madam Chair. More of the same, simply making sure that our tribal governments remain qualified to submit projects as they have them. We'd ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L7 to House Bill 1313 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1313, I have been saying, and I will say it again, is what thoughtful, responsive governance looks like. The original formulas for local governments to continue to qualify on a three-year rolling basis for these all-important Prop 123 funds for affordable housing was not working for our local governments. It was setting unrealistic and unattainable numbers for them to hit to continue to qualify for this funding. And so they came back and asked for us to take a look at the formula. And this bill has been through a massive stakeholding process with our counties, with our cities, and is incredibly responsive to the needs of our municipalities and our communities who want to continue to make these bold investments in housing affordability. Prop 123 is working as intended. It is drastically increasing the stock and construction of affordable housing However the targets that some of these local governments have been asked to hit sometimes fall outside of the range of what they are building realistically overall in their community year over year. And so House Bill 1313 is our, I would say, successful attempt to fix that, fix the formula to make sure that the goals for every single community really are a reflection of what growth in their community looks like. And we have also created a very robust waiver program to ensure that communities that are actually working towards creating more affordable housing are able to continue doing that work. And I'm incredibly proud of the work that we've done in this bill to really make it work flexibly for communities in Colorado. So I would ask for an aye vote. Speaker pro tem base. Thank you, Madam chair. Nearly four years ago, Colorado voters approved proposition 123, which allocated over $300 million to our affordable housing ecosystem each year. I would like to note that since that time, developers, service providers, and local governments have partnered to build more than 11,000 affordable units and serve nearly 100,000 Colorado households. This is an optional program for local governments to opt into. And what we have decided is real and true is that we need to remain true to the voter intent when they passed Proposition 123. And we also need to create a program that is both administrable and achievable for our local governments within that directive. This bill does exactly that. It creates new baseline targets for local governments who opt into the program. It creates a good faith waiver for jurisdictions in particular that had no possibility of ever achieving their growth targets and it also creates flexibility on the baseline ongoing should we have gotten something wrong in this formula so we don't need to keep revisiting this in statute but there's a process whereby we can make sure that the program is flexible enough while adhering to local community standards we ask for a yes vote so any further discussion representative richardson

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sponsors. I'm trying to continue the thoughtful and responsive approach you've taken, and I move L-009 to House Bill 261313 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you. All changes are kind of fraught with sometimes unexpected consequences, and this amendment is meant to protect against that. It's relatively simple. The bill itself replaces a clear uniform standard with a new formula driven by permits, job growth, and DOLA's discretion. This may be an improvement, or it might just be further complication, and something that's easier to meet on paper. We don't really know yet. We know the sponsors are hopeful. We know that all the stakeholders that worked on this are hopeful that this will result in a better system of distribution, but we don't actually know that until we try it. So this amendment just says simply prove it. You know give it five years let the formula run collect data have DOLA report out then answer the questions that really matter did this result in more affordable housing If the answer is yes then we continue it If the answer is no the new formula should not just live on on autopilot This isn't a no on the bill, it's a show your work. For five years, real data, real results, real accountability. I think it's a reasonable change, and I would urge a yes vote. Reperee, Assistant Minority Leader Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also rise in support of this amendment. I think it's a fair amendment. We do this in sunsets all the time, and I appreciate what the sponsors are trying to do with this bill, but I think that you've set out a set of metrics that we'll have the ability to be able to revisit in five years. I think that's important as we write legislation because there's been a lot of times we have to come in this building after a few years when we see something not moving, and we have to work in a different direction. I think this amendment is just a good faith amendment to the program to say these are the metrics we've set out. We're going to push forward and pursue these metrics. And then in five years, we're going to take a look at them. And if they're working, we keep running with them. And then if not, we come back to the drawing board and we change things around. So I think this is just good governance to be able to say, okay, we're going to say we're going to check ourselves in so many years to see if these policy decisions are actually providing what we wanted or this gives us the ability to look at them and basically readjust fire, if that makes sense, to where if some things are working, that we can fix those that aren't and come up with a better plan. But I think this is a really good governance amendment, and I support it 100%. Representative Brooks. Sure, thank you. For many of the same reasons that my AML just got up and described, I rise in support of this amendment. In committee, when we heard this, there was an admission that Proposition 123, there was a little bit of kind of back of the napkin math. I think it was back of the envelope, the term that was used. Back of the envelope math that was used in coming up with the algorithm, coming up with the parameters for Proposition 123, with the understanding that perhaps maybe it wasn't perfect. and that's why we have this policy, this bill in front of us today, is an admission that, hey, you know what, we did the best we could with getting this drafted, but it wasn't entirely dialed in the right way. There was a further admission that along with that, likely we'd have to come back every year, a couple of years, and maybe make some tweaks, maybe make some adjustments along the way. So this ensures that we're doing that because what we don't want to try to project is that we're fixing this and that we're done and that this is the answer that is going to fix 123 because honestly we don't know that. We don't know that. Maybe the job creation piece of this into the algorithm is not exactly the right thing to do. Maybe it's not the wrong thing to do. But we know already that this is going to be a fluid algorithm, a fluid piece that we're going to have to adjust. I still, I express this in committee that I have some concerns to the bill, which I can speak to later. But this amendment, I think, is very fair because it honestly captures the discussion that we had in committee of how this is going to be an ongoing conversation to ensure that we're getting it right. So I would vote. I would ask for an aye vote on this. Representative DeGraff. Yeah, I think coming back in a few years making sure that this program does what is intended seems to be kind of a should be something that is part of all of our bills that we come back and we look at how this is is it doing what we want it to do? Are we spending the citizens' money wisely? And if the program is acting according to what was anticipated, not only as what's anticipated, but do we have the money to continue it? Do we have all that? Then we can look at extending it, but we shouldn't be in a hurry to just keep new stuff going and then being required to have a deliberate look behind us. We should always be looking at evaluating these things so they don't catch us off guard. I ask for an aye vote. Speaker Pro Tembe Snecker. Thank you, Madam Chair. To clarify, I believe my colleague is asking for a yes vote on the amendment. I am not joining him with that sentiment, but appreciate the discussion here. I think the concerns are several with this idea. The first being we are repealing through this amendment the new formula that we are seeking to put into statute. The bill also repeals the old formula. So at the end of the day, would this amendment be adopted? What you're left with in 2031 is no formula, meaning that we have no metric by which to build or require affordable housing to be built in jurisdictions that have opted into Proposition 123. I think it's also out of line with what we should expect from developers and local governments in this area in general. If you are looking to inject a ton of uncertainty into the development space, definitely make a situation where there's no capital to be had and there's uncertainty about whether you can bring your project to market. That's what this amendment would do for developers both on the front and back end of it. That uncertainty, I think, is probably a deal killer for a lot of folks. We also have a waiver process in this bill for the same reason. Should there be a reason why a local government cannot achieve under the new formula, and I would mention that the new formula came to us from our local governments, we have waiver processes in place to account for that. No one in the months of stakeholding that I've done on this bill and Rep. Stewart have done on this bill, no one is asking for this. What they're asking for is a fix that's reasonable, attainable, achievable. We think we've found that through the formula because we've ultimately listened to the local govs and other stakeholders who have asked for this. I would also say this, in response to lines 9 through 15 on this amendment, that reporting already happens, that reporting already exists, so it is duplicative and unnecessary. We ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So what's interesting about this bill is there was the first bill that I ran when I was elected two years ago was called Equal Distribution of Government Funds, and it had to do with 123. So the way that it worked was if you have $300 million, and this is why it was voted down, it was too simple, and it would have actually worked, because I believe we had a formula that didn't work. We came up with a new formula that they're trying to make it better, but I believe you're making it too complicated. The way that the equal distribution of funds works is you take the first $150 million, and you distribute it to the 64 counties equally. That is 2.8 million that would be injected to each county right away. Then you take the other $150 million and you distribute it according to population, which would mean the next $150 million would come over here to the front range and maybe a little bit to Grand Junction. you would have injected 2.8 million dollars into a county uh such as delores county that is bigger than their budget and they would have had 2 million 2.8 million dollars to go to town and start building houses every county would have started with that 2.8 million dollars to build houses and it would be would have been instantly as fast as they could figure out how to do it But my concern about this bill is complication, complication, complication. The first formula didn't work. I have doubts that this formula is going to work. And until we get back to simplicity, we're going to be here in a year or two trying to fix this formula. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The thing that I'm concerned with, I mean, we keep coming back to this, most of these projects are not even, we're turning out these affordable housing ideas faster than they can be implemented, years faster than they can be implemented. And so we're just inundating the market. So as far as creating uncertainty, and we're always continually looking at undermining what's going on in the free market. We're looking at giving passes and grants to nonprofit organizations. we're looking at doing all and just and just and bypassing the free market which historically has a much better track record and then we're trying to fix the fixes to the free the the fix the violations of the free market by more fixes and so this is this is definitely one we're having we obviously have a difference of opinion on whether we have you know we have office vacancy but somehow we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis, but we have record vacancies. And so we're trying to address record vacancies by adding more housing because the housing that's there is expensive, but we're not addressing why it's expensive. Gallagher would be one. We're looking at the property tax issue. We're looking at massive inflation of the four years prior with the 22% inflation that drove value wages down and prices up. And then we're trying to fix it with more government programs. And then we're making it mandatory. Desiring to receive funding under Article 32, desiring affordable housing projects within this territorial boundaries, eligible for funding shall make and file division by commitment specifying of the third year thereafter the combined number of newly constructed affordable housing units and existing units to cover affordable housing and this is not really even defined it just it just less than 30 of the family income So then the target increase equals the number of average annual permits for new housing units or functional equivalents or permits for new housing that have been issued over the last three years within the jurisdiction of the local government or tribal government, multiplied by the number of years in the upcoming three-year cycle to which the local government or tribal tribal government. Wow. I think complexity is one of probably the biggest killers that we have. And this does not minimize complexity, and it does not, I don't think it does anything to get rid of the cost of that added complexity. And I think one thing that I would like to do looking at this is when we look at how this affects the budget, when we get into all this is make the participation in the target increase number framework as described in 1D of this section is voluntary. Local government or applicant that does not participate does not meet the target increase. the number remains eligible for funding under this article based on objective eligibility criteria set in law. So the purpose of this amendment, I move L010 to HB 1313 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So what we're looking at here was what the amendment brought forward, was the participation in the target increased number framework described in Section 1D. So we have this whole complex thing here, desiring to receive funding under Article 32, desiring to make affordable housing projects within its territorial boundaries. It's just to make sure that if the local government applicant does not participate, does not meet the target increase, remains eligible funding under Article 32. for any other funding. So just trying to make it so that the, because the citizens of Colorado are watching these apartment complex come up like mushrooms, and they're wondering what is going on. Why are we building more apartments? Why are these things popping up everywhere? And we want to make sure that just any funding under Article 32, that they're not precluded from that if they opt out of this program.

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. We would ask for a no vote. Essentially, this amendment is saying that meeting absolutely no targets for affordable housing construction will still render a jurisdiction eligible to continue to receive funds, and that is contrary to the voter intent, so we'd ask for a no vote.

Mr Schievel please read the title of House Bill 1318 House Bill 1318 by Representatives Winn and Froehlich concerning traffic safety near schools Representative Winn.

It's a delight to serve with you.

To the committee report.

Sir, any further discussion on the committee report?

Representative DeGraff, did you want to say something?

So on page... Representative Graff, are you talking about an amendment or about the bill?

Okay, thank you.

No, it's okay. Just wanted to clarify.

So we have two amendments on here. So we have two changes on here. Amend the transportation, government dated, and strike page 1, which is going to get rid of, well, page 1. Page 2 of the report, strike lines 1 through 14, and then substitute, which would be in amend the printed bill. So it goes through page 1 through 14, and then go to the printed bill. Strike on page 2 of the bill and strike line 8. page two of the bill and strike line eight and then on page two of the bill strike nine strike boundary and substitute the area immediately adjacent to the school's grounds or marked by the school crossing as specifically designated by the school by the local government or the department of transportation and so going back to this is we're just trying to to make sure that we have this a little bit better defined and not have it what seems like it can be can go out farther than what we in what we intending So school zone exists and the effective date of this subsection as amended extends between 200 feet and 1 feet from a school property boundaries So just substituting that and saying the area immediately adjacent to a school's ground or marked by a school crossing as specifically designated by the local government or the Department of Transportation. And I ask for an aye vote. On the committee report.

The amendment's properly before us. You can continue, Representative DeGraff. Are you done?

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L3? Representative Wynn?

Appreciate it. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L3? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L3. All those in favor say aye. All opposed, no.

Amendment L3 is lost. Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the committee report. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed, no.

The committee report is adopted. To the bill, Representative Froelich.

Is there any further discussion? Representative Richardson.

Amendment L2 is properly displayed. Please proceed, Rep.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L2? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L2. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed, no.

Amendment L2 is lost. To the bill. Representative DeGraff.

The amendments properly before us. Go ahead, Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Nguyen.

Representative DeGraff.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L5. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no.

The Amendment L5 is lost. To the bill, Representative DeGraff.

The amendment is now before us. Go ahead, Representative DeGraff.

Representative Bottoms.

Is there any further discussion on L4? Representative Froeh.

Representative DeGraff. I'm happy to talk for as long as you need. Just kidding. I still ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 76. Senate Bill 76 by Senators Lindstedt and Frizzell, also Representatives Richardson and Stuart R., concerning the practice of certified public accountants.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26-076.

Madam Chair, colleagues, let's begin by simply admitting the obvious. The discussion of the previous seven bills was really just an appetizer. Rep. Stewart and I are proud to bring you today's main course. What can I say about Senate Bill 26076? Other than 76 is a very patriotic number, but I know what some of you are thinking. it a bill about CPAs this guy from Albert he knows how to pack a room You know when you think of thrilling childhood games I mean, how many of us really fondly reflect on playing cowboys and CPAs? Bursting into your childhood friend's home, saying, I'll be the auditor, you be the sole proprietor, let's go play. Yeah. Probably none of you. Okay. So as unglamorous as the profession may seem, as we continue to regulate, CPAs are the people that are quietly keeping the wheels on. They help businesses make payroll. They help nonprofits stay accountable. They help families and taxpayers navigate complicated rules. And they help make sure the numbers actually add up, which in government and definitely as we see next week is an especially valuable tool. Colorado is facing a real shortage of CPAs, and this isn't just a problem with that profession. It actually could lead to a problem within our economy. When there are too few qualified professionals, the workload goes up, burnout occurs, the pipeline gets weaker, and this hurts small businesses, taxpayers, and communities across the state. So this bill addresses the shortage in a practical way. It doesn't lower standards. It keeps the uniform CPA exam. It keeps the board-approved ethics exam. It keeps meaningful work experience. What it changes is the idea that there must be only one rigid, one-size-fits-all path to certification. So I will turn this over to my co-prime to talk about those pathways. Thank you. I've been looking for a way to connect CPAs and smooth operators for you, Representative Richardson. Representative Stewart. I'll work on it while she talks. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 76 expands the current restrictive pathway to become a CPA and opens it up to three different, more flexible pathways. First, the traditional route remains, a bachelor's degree, 30 additional credit hours, and a year of accounting-related work experience, but it also provides a second and third opportunity. A candidate can qualify with a bachelor's degree and two years of accounting-related work experience. This matters because it allows real-world professional experience to substitute for the extra 30 academic credit hours. For working adults, career changers, and people who cannot afford to spend more time and money chasing credits, this is a really meaningful reform. Third, a candidate can qualify with a master's degree and a year of work experience. The bill also updates the law to reflect modern higher education by focusing on degree completion rather than just rigid credit hour counting. The bill also helps students who are in dual degree programs sit for the CPA exam once they've earned their bachelor's degree and it improves our interstate compact for licensed CPAs from other states while preserving protections for Colorado consumers. This bill recognizes a basic truth. Competency matters more than forcing everyone through the exact same pathway and if someone can pass an exam the ethics requirements improve themselves through real work we ought to make room for that pass, and I would ask for an aye vote.

Yeah, I just wanted to add the CPA Association has worked very hard on this over the last many, many months. They came together. There's a lot of issues that they are facing. This is when they agreed was the number one that they needed to tackle and wanted to get after this year. So it really does provide a much broader pathway to get to being into that glamorous role as a CPA It pro It pro It reduces unnecessary barriers without compromising trust, rigor, or the public protections that are already in place. So I would absolutely urge a yes vote by everyone in this chamber.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I rise in support of this bill. And I do not come up here to say a lot that this is a good bill because we have some good bills here, not a lot of good bills. But I think when it comes to CPA specifically, I graduated from the School of Business from the Montfort School of Business in Greeley, the UNC, so go Bears. And I think I see a lot of the concerns of what this bill aims to address. I think we have a shortage of CPAs and I think that we should streamline the pathways and the process to make sure that we do have good CPAs and enough CPAs in the state of Colorado. You know right now the burdensome regulatory environment we face ourselves in today, whether it comes through getting a degree and licensing and certification in the process of like. We should be reminding ourselves when we pass policies like this of the goal that we want to do, which is to make sure that we incentivize people to practice in their work field of work here in Colorado. I spoke with my school of business specifically about this bill as well the Dean to bring it to his attention just to kind of get some feedback and the feedback that I got from them was great they appreciate the work that sponsors have done to get this bill to where it is now and I think we should all stand with our CPAs and even friends that I have who are CPAs I hear from some of them that the workload is is incredibly incredibly burdensome it can take a long time and I think we should stand with our CPAs to make sure we have more more CPAs in the field to make sure we have what we need, especially for businesses and bookkeeping and taxes and all the things of that. Accountants do play their role. And I can tell you from taking accounting, that's the job that I do not want to do. I did not want to do. I do not wish to do. But there are people who want to do that. And kudos, I commend them for that. Studying accounting, I know there's a lot that goes in it and the process to get certified and get the CPA. So I encourage and I vote on this bill. And I just want to come in and sponsor for the work to get the bill to where it is now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I actually said it on the committee in business for this bill when it came through. And I did like the fact that it had no fiscal note. And the fact that it expands the pathways. It actually puts less regulation on the requirements for having CPAs, which is another thing that I liked. And after going through everything and learning more about the world of CPA, I can tell you that they actually made the IT kids look like the cool kids in the room. But I stand in support of this bill, and hopefully it will get a yes vote all the way through. Thank you.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 53. Senate Bill 53 by Senators Kirkmeyer and Mullica, also Representatives Clifford and Gonzalez, concerning the expansion of eligible borrowers for mortgages through the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority.

Oh, I take it back to the committee report.

We had an amendment in committee, apparently.

I'm sorry.

Okay. Is there any discussion on the committee report?

Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. The committee report is passed. Mr. Sheebel, I'm sorry, Mr. Sheebel, forget that. Forget the bill. Let's go to the bill. Who would like to discuss the bill?

representative Clifford thank you madam chair before we get to my comments on the bill, I move L-8 to Senate Bill 53 and ask that it be properly displayed. Hold on, please. Representative Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. We intended to include port of entry officers. We thought that they were part of the Colorado State Patrol, but they are defined in code separately, and we also did not include wildlife officers. We are just making sure that they're added as part of this bill and clearly defined. And we request an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What's important for me to note about this bill is this is just allowing an expansion of the CHFA, the state program, that allows mortgages. There has been some conversation, and I read something online the other day about something about why are we not doing this for everyone. We have found that there are programs that are similar to this for almost other noble professions, teachers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This is an area where, you know, say, for instance, in the mountain towns and some of the places that have gotten very expensive, it is quite difficult for us to be able to allow housing affordability for people that work in professions such as a police officer, a wildlife officer, et cetera. We know exactly what those folks make. We want to make sure that housing is attainable for them in areas that we want them to live Keep in mind that you know say for instance somebody from the Colorado State Patrol while they in the academy they have the opportunity to list a couple of areas that they would like to work, and at some point in time they're basically told, this is where you're going to go. We would like for people to set roots in the communities that they're in, not necessarily that they couldn't move around later if they'd like, but if they get someplace and they'd like it, and they want to buy a house and own a home, we think that that should be attainable for them, and this makes sure that through our mortgage, you know, state-sponsored mortgage applications that they have the opportunity to do that and that they're supported in that. We certainly have no other opposition to having other entities come and look at this at some point in time, but this was something that became a priority for us, and I request an aye vote. Thank you.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, once again, we're doing all this hoop jumping. We're not making the cost of housing less unaffordable. We're carving out, we're doing all this sort of stuff. So I'm kind of thinking maybe explore something like where we can do instead of all this hoop jumping through and special qualification is maybe we just take these different classifications of individuals, law first responder, medical from these housing, and then just make a waiver for the property tax that would be paid so that we just give them a waiver on the property tax if they're going to be favored in that way. So I do realize that it's not really part of this bill, but it would be an easier way, and it seems like that would be something that's more in line with what the role of us would be to remove something that we've imposed on them instead of carving out all of this special stuff and imposing more duties on other people. So just kind of a broader conversation maybe and not so much on this bill. But I think if we're going to make housing less unaffordable, then we need to start dealing with the stuff that we can deal with in this instead of all these extra side bills and twists in the law that make it more complicated.

Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will also say this is also working with a partnership with CHAFA, and so CHAFA has time and time again helped provide, I think, over 2.1 billion in mortgage loans and down payment assistance to support more than 5,400 Colorado homebuyers as of February of this year. And they are servicing 12.9 billion loan portfolio over 44, almost 45,000 first lien home loans. And I would also just like to say, while I understand where my colleague from El Paso is coming from, I think we should also understand that when we continue to defund our law enforcement or first responders, I think at a time when we should be funding them more, they are not being able to have access to homes and to mortgages, to down payments and so this aims to bring down those barriers I think that that's something while I like the ideas that my colleague El Paso that something we can revisit in the future I know that possible likely just right now the circumstances this is a good step in the right direction This is step one and we don want to disparage our first responders We did also have a program passed I think last year for our teachers and so I think we're looking at ways to help the people in need to bring them to be homeowners, which is what they want. I think everybody in Colorado wants to be homeowners, but we should not leave our first responders out of that equation.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 31. Senate Bill 31 by Senators Linstead and Rich, also Representatives Camacho and Soper, concerning the lawful use of a prescription drug product containing a Schedule I controlled substance.

Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The bill, the committee report passes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And just picking up on the comments of my co-sponsor here, this does not change any law in Colorado until there's federal action. One, it has to be FDA approved as medically beneficial, and then two, any drug contemplated by this bill would have to be descheduled by the DEA. So those are two requirements. At its core, what we are trying to do is, especially in the mental health space, there are so many Coloradans in our community and across the state that could benefit from some transformational therapies that are coming online, and what this bill does is streamlines their access to those if it is medically necessary necessary and administered in an inpatient setting by a professional. So for that, we ask for an aye vote.

Mr Schiebel please read the title of Senate Bill 87 Senate Bill 87 by Senators Wallace and Pelton B also Representatives Winn and Lindsay concerning authorizing legislative leave from employment during a legislative session for certain members of the General Assembly.

Thank you. Representative Soper.

Representative Lindsay.

Representative Bradley.

The committee will stand in a brief recess. Order. The committee will not come back to order. Come back to order. That amendment has been properly displayed. Representative Bradley.

Representative Johnson.

Representative DeGraff.

Representative Soper.

Representative Johnson.

Representative Nguyen.

Representative Wynn, we're on Amendment L5.

The question before us is Amendment L5 to... Did someone? Okay. One moment. Thank you. Yes, we're going to put ourselves in a brief recess. We will come back to order The question before us is the adoption of Amendment L to Senate Bill 87 A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please sit and remain seated. All those in favor of Amendment L-5, please stand and remain standing in one place, or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you. Thank you. Please be seated. All those in favor, please stand and remain standing in one place. You're correct. Okay, I'm a little rusty. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you. Thank you. huh? So it's a simple majority, yeah? So then I have it, yeah. You may be seated. The amendment is passed. Woohoo! Yeah! So the bill. All right. Representative Flannell.

Representative Kelty.

The question before us, is there any further debate on Senate Bill 87? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 87 as amended. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The bill passes. Madam Majority Leader.

You heard the motion. The committee will rise and report. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Representative Froelich. Members, the motion before us is the adoption of the report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Madam Majority Leader.

Members, the motion to suspend the rules for the immediate consideration of Senate amendments to House Bill 1339 does require a two-thirds vote. Mr. Schiebel, the motion before us is the adoption is to suspend the rules for the immediate consideration of House Bill 1339. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Okay, I have something to do.

Madam Majority Leader.

Please proceed.

Representative Garcia.

Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1339 Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote

Madam Majority Leader.

1339 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Co-sponsors.

Announcements and introductions. I have a couple of announcements. Representative Wilford will replace Representative Jackson on House Transportation, Housing, and Local Government for today only. Oh, for tomorrow only. Forgive me. And Assistant Majority Leader Bacon will replace Representative Zokai on House Finance for today only. Representative Woodrow.

It is an honor to serve with you. All right, folks.

Representative Wilford.

You're welcome. So we got that announcement twice today. I love it.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Tuesday, March 31, 2026.

Mr. Schiebel, introduction of bills. House Bill 1344 by Representative Stuart Cain Bradfield, also Senator Linstead, concerning the continuation of the Colorado Podiatry Report and in connection therewith, implementing the recommendation in the 2025 Sunset Report by the Department of Regulatory Agencies to require podiatrists to develop a written plan to ensure the security of patient medical records. House Bill 1344 will be assigned to the Committee on Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 48 by Senators Hendrickson and Marchman, also Representatives Joseph and Garcia, concerning removing the exception that authorizes a minor who is 16 years old or older to marry with judicial approval and in connection therewith, reducing an appropriation. Senate Bill 48 will be assigned to the Committee on State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs. Mr. Schiebel, introduction of resolution. House Resolution 1004 by Representatives Duran and Garcia, concerning celebrating Farm Workers' Day. House Resolution 1004 will be laid over one day under House rule.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House stand in adjournment