House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs [Mar 23, 2026]

Okay.

Represent Bottoms. Here. Bradley. Here. Carter. Present. Espinosa. Here. Frey. Here. Froelich.

Luck? Here. Wynn? Present. Ricks? Present. Clifford? Here.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I want to begin by acknowledging that this is not an easy bill, and it was not an easy discussion with my family. When we talk about removing a name from statue, we are not just talking about policy. We are talking about history, we are talking about identity, and we are talking about people's lived experiences. But this conversation doesn't start here. It started with survivors. It started with members of our communities who came forward with painful stories of sexual abuse and rape and who asks something very simple of us, to listen and to not look away. When serious allegations of sexual assault and abuse are raised, especially by those who have carried the pain in silence, we have a responsibility to respond with integrity. As a survivor of domestic violence, I know what it means to question whether your voice will be heard. I know what it feels like to carry something heavy and wonder if anyone will believe you, see you, and hear you. and I also know what it means when someone finally does. This is why this bill removes Cesar Chavez Day from the Colorado statue. This bill is not meant to erase history, not to dismiss the labor movement, but because when we choose who we honor in law, we must be willing to reevaluate that honor when harm is brought to light. And we must be willing to center those who too often go unheard. But this bill does more than remove a name. It creates something stronger, something broader, something that belongs to the people it was always meant to recognize, our farm workers. Because this story has never been about one person. It has always been about the workers. Here in Colorado, agriculture is not a small piece of our economy. It is the cornerstone. It generates roughly $47 billion in economic activity every year and supports over 195,000 jobs across our state. In rural Colorado, farm workers make up a critical part of the workforce, helping sustain local economies and communities every single day. And many of those workers are our families who make up a significant share of the agricultural workforce and help keep this industry moving forward. but behind every story is a family, a sacrifice, and a legacy. I know that because it's my story. I'm the daughter of migrant farm workers. My family worked in those fields. My mother worked in those fields. She would wake up before the sun, work long days under the heat, and still came home to take care of her family. She believed in the promise of this country, even when that promise didn't always show up for her. And like many families our journey was not easy There were moments of struggle moments where survival was not guaranteed moments that shaped who I am today As a survivor I understand resilience is a very personal in a very personal way The kind of resilience that is not loud, the kind that does not ask for recognition, but the kind that keeps going anyway. That is the same resilience I see in farm workers across Colorado. This bill is about honoring them, the workers who harvest our food, the families who pass down traditions of strength and sacrifice, the communities whose contributions are often invisible but absolutely essential. Farm workers are not a footnote in our history. They are the backbone of it. And today we have an opportunity to recognize that truth in a way that is inclusive, forward-looking, and rooted in dignity. By creating Farm Workers Day, we are not taking something away. we are giving something back, back to the people who have carried this work for generations, back to the families whose stories deserve to be centered, back to the community that has shaped Colorado in ways we can never fully measure. This is about listening to survivors. This is about honoring workers. This is about aligning our laws with our values. And let me be clear about what this moment means. In our Latino community, this is not about turning our backs on our history. This is about telling the truth, holding it with honesty, and choosing to honor the people who carried that history on their backs every single day. We can be proud of where we came from and still have the courage to grow. We can honor our roots and still say that harm has no place in who we choose to lift up. And to survivors, especially those in our Latino community who have too often been told to stay quiet, to protect reputation over truth, to endure instead of speak. I see you. I believe you. And today this body has an opportunity to stand with you, not in words but in action, because silence has never protected us, but accountability can. This bill sends a clear message that we will not ignore them no matter how difficult the conversation, that we will not elevate legacy over lived experience, and that in Colorado survivors will never have to wonder whose side we are on. We're on your side. And at the same time, we're lifting up the true hearts of this story, the farm workers, the families, the generations who rose before the sun and built this state with their hands. This is not about erasing. This is about restoring. Restoring dignity, restoring truth, and restoring honor to the people who have always deserved it. So today we choose courage, we choose honesty, and we choose to stand with both survivors and the community that shaped so many of us. I respectfully ask for your support on House Bill 1339. Thank you.

Members of the committee, it is with heartache, sadness, anger, and joy that I co-prime House Bill 1339 with Majority Leader Duran. My heart aches for the victims who were silenced, ignored, or who feared exposing the man for the predator that he was. My sadness is for the way this country continues to uplift predators, rapists, child molesters, child rapists as heroes instead of holding these people accountable. I'm grateful that Dolores Huerta finally built the courage to expose the abuses of the man who has been hailed a hero of a movement. I'm grateful to the brave women who were assaulted as girls who never gave up the drive to bring this man to justice. And sadly these same women and others who are still grappling with the abuses will never see true justice because Cesar Chavez is dead much like the Epstein victims and survivors But today, we can start the process to remove the constant reminder that protecting these men is more important than justice for victims by changing Cesar Chavez's day to Farm Workers' Day. This is where I find joy. Esmeralda Lopez, one of Chavez's victims, said, The movement, that is the hero. Chavez was just a man who helped lead a movement, but he did not do it alone. There were thousands leading this movement. The farm workers were the ones who held the line for fair work practices and pay. The thousands of women, like my grandmother and aunt, who worked the fields and raised their kids. They sacrificed. They risked everything for this movement. By renaming this day as Farm Workers' Day, we are honoring the movement, the thousands who fought and continue to fight for fair practices for farm workers. We are not honoring a man. My grandmother, my dad, my uncle, and my aunt were farm workers back in the day. They would travel the harvesting circuit and pick potatoes, onions, peaches, corn, whatever was there to be picked. They would have to shack up with dozens or so of other farm workers, men and women, in shacks during the harvest. They jump in the back of trucks, hitchhike, spend the precious cents they earned per bushel, barrel, or basket for bus tickets to the next job. This day honors workers like them and the countless workers, women farm workers, women who fought, who have largely been forgotten while the country and this day honored a single, abusive man. We can correct this today. By creating the Farm Workers Day, we have the opportunity to elevate this population who make it possible for you and I to have food on our tables, who do the grueling work and the grueling heat or the bitter cold so we can feed our families, who work day in and day out so the crops don't spoil. And yet even today, we see efforts to roll back these rights that these farm workers have fought so hard for. Why are farm workers unique and why do we need to make sure that this movement continues in their name? It's because they, as well as domestic workers, have been exempted from overtime protection in the Fair Labor Standards Act nearly 90 years ago. When most employees get overtime after 40 hours, those who are responsible for our ability to eat healthy and nutritious foods are not given this protection, and we see that threat even today in this building. Naming March 31st as Farm Workers Day will not only help keep the original and continued basis for this movement front and center while providing a small concession to victims and survivors of the exploitation and abuse that women experience in all spaces. I ask for your yes vote. Thank you very much. Sponsors, members, what questions do you have? Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, ladies, for bringing this. I have two questions. The first is, since the day that was chosen initially was chosen because it was his birthday, did you all give any thought to changing the day and further distancing from that particular part of this story? And secondly, I have only been following this tangentially, and so I'm just wondering because you're bringing this forward my assumption is that whatever evidence has been put out is substantive enough to justify this but if you could just put on the record any of those details or any of the things that make you since there cannot be a hearing right there cannot be any sort of formal proceeding because he is deceased if you can just lay for the record why we think that this is why one set of evidence and one story does supersede the more traditional understanding of who this person was. Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, we often hear, and I heard this when I went through my domestic violence, sexual assault, is, you know, just keep it to yourself, right? There's so much stigma and shame that I think right now when we have survivors that are speaking up and being public about what they have gone through, we don't question that. We accept the fact that that's what happened. When you have Dolores Fuerta, who is also a tremendous leader for farm workers, who has stepped up and spoke about something that she held really close to her heart for over 60 years. I don't question whether that's true or not. I accept it. As far as have we thought about the date, doing it a different date, we have not. We felt that that day is for our farm workers, and that's how we want to acknowledge it and change that in statute. So thank you for your questions. Representative Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. There has been a pretty in-depth investigation around the allegations that were brought forward, and through looking at the evidence found, whether it was in the minutes from meetings from United Farm Workers or even email exchanges, they do correlate and they do uphold the accusations that were brought forward. Some emails where you have board members that are explicitly telling, giving the direction that the girls who are coming forward need to be silenced. And so there is a substantial amount of body of evidence that does demonstrate that what these allegations are are true. Any other questions, members? Thank you all so much. We're going to move into witness testimony. You're welcome to stay there if you wish. We have one person that signed up in person and the other individuals are signed up remotely. So I'll call Valerie Collins, Hunter Knapp, Shirley Romero Otero, and Richard Garcia. And if there is anyone else with us today in person that wishes to provide testimony, please come forward at this time. Welcome. Thank you so much for being here. Please introduce yourself and the floor is yours for three minutes. Thank you. My name is Valerie Collins, and I'm an attorney at Towards Justice, which fights for economic justice and worker power. Before that, I also spent many years at the National Labor Relations Board. I first want to commend Majority Leader Duran and Representative Garcia for bringing this bill forward. Allegations of sexual assault and harassment are unfortunately widespread, and when they occur, we need to stand with survivors, which is exactly what this bill does. The farm worker movement has always been about collective power, about thousands of workers who organized, sacrificed, and fought for their dignity. Farmworker Day recognizes that truth by centering the people whose labor sustains us all. This organizing has made tremendous strides, but the fight continues. And that is why as important as there is a day to recognize, but also there's a continued effort here. While the Colorado Bill of Rights, or Agricultural Worker Bill of Rights that passed in 2021 extended crucial rights to farm workers, such as the right for rest breaks, minimum wage, heat protections, and the right to organize, they still lack very fundamental labor protections, such as overtime rights. Unfortunately, a bill that would have corrected that died last week in Senate Committee. And sadly, a bill is currently moving forward that would require farm workers to work 60 hours a week, 20 additional hours per week than most other workers enjoy in order to earn overtime. In order to properly honor farm workers and recognize the trauma of survivors perpetuated by abuse of Cesar Chavez by renaming the day, let us also remember that a movement is not built around one person and the movement continues and continues to need your active support. Let us honor this day, but follow it with action, just as Dolores Huerta has done for a lifetime. fight let this day be a call to action to fight for those workers to have full labor protections and i thank you for your time thank you very much let's go online to hunter knapp welcome please come off mute and the floor is yours for three minutes thank you madam chair and members of the committee and thank you to majority leader duran and representative garcia for your leadership and your powerful words describing the need for this legislation. My name is Hunter Knapp. I'm the development director of Project Protect Food Systems Workers, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting Colorado's agricultural workers. I'm here today in support of HB 1339, which would rename the March 31st holiday to Farm Workers Day. Despite the horrible actions of Cesar Chavez that have recently come to light, recognizing the substantial contributions of farm workers remains as important as ever. At a time when farm workers face depressed wages and a climate of fear around immigration enforcement, the legislature should make a clear public demonstration of support for these essential community members. Renaming this holiday Farm Workers Day centers the recognition where it belongs. Not on any single individual, but on the tens of thousands of farm workers who labor in challenging conditions throughout Colorado. These are the workers who harvest the crops and care for the animals that make agriculture a multi-billion dollar industry, often in extreme heat without labor rights that most workers take for granted. Even this year, the Colorado General Assembly is taking steps to roll back rights for farm workers by requiring them to work more than 60 hours each week before earning overtime pay. Establishing a holiday honoring farm workers is a small but meaningful gesture. It signals to farm workers and rural communities that Colorado values them and their contributions. I respectfully urge a yes vote on HB 1339. Thank you. Thank you very much members. Do you have any questions? Oh wonderful. Okay welcome Mr. Garcia. Please come off mute and the floor is yours for three minutes. Mr Garcia are you able to come off mute and share your testimony with us Last call, Mr. Garcia. Okay, Mr. Garcia, unfortunately we're not able to hear you if you're trying to provide testimony. I have already made a last call for anybody in the room, and so with that, I'm sorry that you weren't able to provide testimony, but we are going to move. Oh, wow, look at that. You just needed an extra second. Magic. Are you able to come off mute? Can you hear us, Mr. Garcia? If you can hear us, give us a thumbs up. Looks like he's trying. I don't know. I know. Uh. Huh. What? Mr. Garcia, if you can hear us, can you give us a thumbs up? I don't think you can hear us. Okay. All right. Unfortunately, we're not able to hear you, and we haven't been able to figure out how to unmute you, and so we are going to move on with the hearing. Thank you for joining us to provide testimony. With that, the testimony phase is... Oh, yes, I'm so sorry. Members do have questions for either of the individuals that provide a testimony. Okay, seeing none, thank you all so much for your time and your testimony. The testimony phase is now closed. Sponsors, do you have any amendments? No, Madam Chair, we don't. Committee, do you have any amendments? Okay. Seeing none, the amendment phase is now closed. Bill, wrap up. Representative Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think one of the things is whether you heard today the need to provide some form of justice to our victims or because you want to uphold the fight for workers rights I think either way, there is a need to get this bill passed because we do need to make sure that victims are heard. We need to make sure that survivors are heard. And we need we need to make sure that we as a state are not going to be holding space in such a public way for perpetrators. I know I just. Please vote yes. Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have anything more to add. my co-prime did an amazing job. I would just ask for a yes vote today. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Clifford, would you like to make the motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 261339 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Second. Seconded by Representative Carter. Members, do you have any closing comments? Representative Espinoza? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors, for bringing forward this bill. I, too, am the daughter of farmworkers and grew up during the time of Cesar Chavez. But more importantly, the time of the farmworker movement, because it was a movement for everyone, like my parents, who'd worked in the fields. I think Representative Garcia did a good job listing most of the crops, but I know here in Colorado my parents were beet farmworkers, and we know the toil that they had to endure because of the short-handled hoe. And they dropped out of the migrant fields in Utah. which is where I was born and raised. And I just want to say I think it's so important to recognize this community that has for generations served and worked in Colorado and throughout the country. And I do believe this is an appropriate time and place. And I would note to the question of whether we should have changed the date, the reality is this date is on the calendar, and in order to replace it with something timely that makes sense in light of these allegations, I wholeheartedly support the fact that we chose to move this bill forward and move forward to replace the date, because in some ways that's more of a recognition that we're terminating that from the existence right now in light of what's happened. But I do thank you very much, and I will be enthusiastic. Yes, thank you. Representative Froelich. Thank you, Madam Chair, for letting me speak from the wall. I just want to thank the bill sponsors for bringing the bill and for some of the most compelling opening remarks I've heard in my time in the legislature, and I'll be an enthusiastic yes. Representative Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really want to thank both sponsors. It cannot be easy moving forward on a bill like this. I know on my time on the school board, we had conversations about naming things after people. There is a want and a need to be respectful. There's also the want and need to at least be honest about those individuals that we're naming certain things after. And those are hard conversations. I'm truly amazed and excited by the swiftness that this bill came forward. And I want to thank you, too. Any other closing comments Okay With that thank you both so much for bringing this I echo the comments especially of Representative Froelich and that your openings were so compelling Thank you for being vulnerable and sharing your stories and I look forward to making Farm Workers Day a reality in Colorado With that Ms King please poll the committee Representatives, bottoms. Yes. I'm sorry, what was that? Yes. Yes. Bradley Carter Yes Espinosa Yes Bray Yes Froelich Yes Luck Yes Wynn Yes Ricks Yes Clifford Yes Madam Chair Yes House Bill 1339 passes on a vote of 11 to 0 Thank you both so much Majority Leader Duran, don't go too far. I believe that you have our next bill. Welcome, Representative Hartsook. I don't know that we've seen you in state affairs yet this year, but delighted to have you come and say hello. Okay. Of course. Thank you. Who would like to begin? Representative Hartzuck, take it away. Thank you, Madam Chair. What they're passing out right now is an amendment, but let's back up for a second before we can talk about the amendment, if it's okay with Madam Chair. So in the business world, as in the military world, and anything that you're doing, you look at a structure. You look at a force structure. How does that force structure meet it? In the business world, you're looking at what are you building, what does your customers need? How does all that go? You structure both your financial and your resources to meet that need. It's no different here in the government. In this particular case, with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, shortened to CBI, they are tasked with running background checks when anybody purchases a weapon. Those background checks, but unfortunately the statute was written that says they have to be fully manned 12 hours a day, whether there's something going through or not. In our budget crunch world right now, that is neither cost effective, doesn't even make for good governance, and it doesn't help when there's a surge. I know for a fact that in the past, many, many years ago, when our kids were younger and they were starting out, and I went and picked them some shotguns for youth shooting, It took a long time because it was at the holidays because the checks, everything was backed up. So we had to wait. We finally came back and we got the approval and then we were able to get the shotguns. What this bill does, along with this amendment, is it tells CBI you still have to meet your requirement. You have to meet it within that 12-hour day from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. You have to process it immediately, which is what that amendment was just passed out. it said shall not, but we was requested to be processed immediately. So we're now telling them you still have to meet the task, you still have to meet it in that time frame, no matter what the law changes to in the future is irrelevant, whether the waiting period has nothing to do with it. That background check must be processed immediately. But it allows CBI to decide when is there the surge, when do they need to put more resources to expedite that process immediately. And that is the purpose of both the amendment and the bill, to save the government money, not raise the additional fees on processing the background checks, and still do it within that same 12-hour time frame to meet the statute and get the job done. Madam Chair, if you would like me to go through the amendment now, we can, or we can wait. If it's okay with you, I can go through the specifics of it now so you can understand. I think that's great. Thank you. Thank you. So if you look at the very beginning there, when it says shall process immediately, that means that exactly that, when CBI receives the request, whether it's 9 o'clock in the morning, noontime, 5 p.m., or 8 p.m. in the evening, they have to process it immediately within that shift. It also then further states on there that from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., which is the existing hours, and the only holidays they get off are Thanksgiving and Christmas. Now, that's kind of a tough task, even in the military. We get more days off than that. But it's still saying those are the only two days that they get to not have to process it within that 12-hour time frame, but they still must have to process everything immediately. That is the current existing time frame right now from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. So that 12-hour time frame stays the same. Processing immediately is added. but the biggest difference is it allows CBI to figure out when is that big push coming, when do I need to devote more resources to accomplish that. And with that, we would ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee. I'm honored to join my co-prime sponsor, Representative Hartzell, on this bill. House Bill 1302 is about supporting our communities, modernizing the Instacheck system, and being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars during a very tight budget year. In fiscal year 24-25, Instacheck processed more than 340,000 background checks, yet only about 31,000 of those requests came in between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m., roughly 9% of the daily volume. Even with that low demand, current law requires full staffing during those hours, including supervisors, leads, and technicians. That means we are paying shift differentials and maintaining staffing levels that do not reflect actual usage. At a time when every dollar matters, we have a responsibility to look at how we operate and where we can be more efficient without compromising service. House Bill 1302 does exactly that. It removes the statutory requirement that Instacheck operate 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and instead allows CBI to set hours based on real business needs. This creates flexibility, improves efficiency, and ensures resources are aligned with demand. So let me be clear what this bill doesn't do. It doesn't change a person's ability to purchase a firearm. It does not eliminate background checks. It simply allows the system to operate smarter and wiser. This is about good governance. It's about fiscal responsibility. and it's about doing more with the resources we have while continuing to serve the people of Colorado. And I respectfully ask for a yes vote on House Bill 1302. Thank you very much. Members, do you have any questions? Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill's sponsors. I have two questions. I was wondering why there's no fiscal impact if they're going to change their hours. And then my second question is what safeguards or what holds them accountable if they change their hours and background checks aren getting done Is there going to be an audit of some sort Is there going to be some sort of transparency if people are waiting longer than normal times Representative Hartzook. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. So the answer to your first question is, why is there no fiscal note showing the savings? Because they have already lost seven positions. So CBI has been tasked under the current statute of maintaining this full staffing and this pay differential even with less manpower. What we are now saying is given the changes in the budget and unless you want to increase the fees, which I am opposed to increasing the fees to get a background check, then the only other option is give them flexibility so they can shift around and not have to pay the constant shift differential. That's what happens in this because you still have to meet that background check where it says process immediately. And I would like to go back to that. You ask, which gets into your second question, where is that guaranteed? Because it says so. It says it in statute that you must process it immediately. You can't wait. You can't delay. You can't take the day off except for Thanksgiving and Christmas. And that is what is already in the current statute. So there is no change, zero change. to the current number of hours, the number of two days that are off, and everything that's being processed. It is still required to be processed immediately within that 12-hour time frame. The big thing is it's the cost savings that is already accounted for and avoiding raising those fees. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both. I'm looking at the amendment, and starting on line 7, The Bureau shall allow the submission of a background check request at a minimum from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. every day. Does that mean that all the Bureau now has to do is allow for some sort of automated receipt process? They're just allowing the submission of so presumably, if I'm understanding correctly, the intention of this bill, there won't necessarily be people who are there from 9 to 9. It's just they have to have some sort of functionality for receiving these requests to process at a later time. Representative Hartsock. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. Let me reiterate once again. The hours are currently 9 to 9. They will remain 9 to 9. The staffing is covered from 9 to 9. What changes is the mandatory full-time staffing of everybody. You're fluctuating when you need to have the maximum push. So your question about, yes, are they receiving it? They must receive it within those 12 hours. That first sentence one says, process immediately. Like I said in my opening statement, if you receive it at 8 p.m. at night, you must process it. You have to process it now at 8 p.m. at 8 p.m., you still got to process it at 8 p.m. in the future. None of that is changing. The only thing that is changing is the ability allowing CBI to fluctuate and surge when they have an increase of the requests. But they still have to cover down from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., as it states in that amendment. Representative Luck, a follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the conversation. I guess in my mind I still a bit confused because on page three of the current bill there is actually more discretion in lines four and five to CBI than under this amended version Under current law they have to operate for at least 12 hours per day It doesn delineate what those hours should be. And now with this amendment, we're saying from nine to nine. And so I guess I'm now just confused as to why make this change at all if they're still going to have to be staffed, I don't see in the language related to these particular pieces how that's giving them flexibility. So if you could further explain, I'd appreciate it.

Representative Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my question is more of an assumption. I'm assuming they already have this data and they already have the ability to indicate when there's going to be a surge and when there's not going to be a surge based on the bill being in effect. and I would love to see that data saying, okay, on Saturday, or not Saturday, on the day before Christmas, there's going to be a surge, or October 15th, for some reason, there's going to be a surge. I'm assuming they already have that data. I would love to see that data.

Representative Espinoza.

Am I misunderstanding something Representative Hartzahuck Thank you Madam Chair And no Representative Espinosa So what we did so that was the original yes the purpose was doing that Then there was some questions with some stakeholders, which you'll hear from some of the other stakeholders here later on, that are talking about, well, we need to know, is that still specify where they're going to have to process it immediately? So at the request from some of the organizations, both with CBI and some of the other stakeholders, they went through and they said, oh, well, let's put that in there so it does specify, but we still allow CBI to fluctuate their manpower because it's that shift pay differential, which is the driving force. If they don't have to have it fully staffed with the supervisors and all of the personnel in there at the same time when there's nothing going on, but they, so in other words, maybe have one person at 9 o'clock in the morning, and then when they have the data that was asked about earlier, and they can have that, then you're going to get more people in there with a supervisor. You still have to do it. within the same time frame. And that was the request that came in from a stakeholder. And so that's why we went to that 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. to keep that the same and processing it immediately. So it still meets that intent, has the saving of the money, doesn't have to raise the fees for submitting a background check.

Yes. And this may be better for the witnesses who we're going to have, but I read the bill to say we don't have 12 hours anymore because we're striking the word 12 hours on the top of page 3, line 4 and 5. And so I think we were – my understanding of the bill is that we're giving CBI the flexibility to set their own hours, not to say they have to go from 9 to 9.

Representative Espinoza. But I think that goes back to the representative from Penrose's question, is that your amendment simply says it must be submitted. It does not require the staffing, so we are still reducing the actual staffing as long as there's a mechanism to submit the information between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. Am I missing something? As I read the language, that's what I think it's saying.

Representative Espinoza. I think, though, the issue that I'm struggling with in terms of the bill and the amendment is overall, I think the purpose of the bill is to give CBI the personnel determination of when they need to staff, and therefore we are not mandating that staff has to be present 9 to 9, only that there is a mechanism to submit the request from 9 to 9, as I read the amendments. Am I missing something?

I'm following where the confusion is at. We've had discussions where we had everybody at the roundtable with CBI stakeholders, myself, and we went through all of this stuff, and everybody came to the agreement. So let's get them up here, and maybe they can give you a clearer picture than what I'm transmitting to you.

I think we're all – I've seen a lot of nodding heads and glances. I think there is a little bit of confusion in terms of how the amendment fits into the bill. And I think the way that Representative Espinoza was explaining it was the way that I interpreted it as well. And so we'll be sure when CBI comes forward in the witness testimony to take a moment to clarify that. I wasn't seeing any other questions. And so while you were both up here, I wonder, we have 12 people that have signed up in opposition to the bill. and four people signed up in support of the bill. Do you have a preference in terms of how we hear that testimony?

Thank you both. We'll move into witness testimony, and then we'll continue the discussion. All right, so our first panel, there are five people signed up in person, so we'll call everybody up at the same time. I have Michael Quinlan, Cody Harm, Keith Emerson, Bob Davis, Catching Valentis, and then online, Missy Espinosa. Welcome. Welcome, sir. Will you state your name for the record? Anybody you represent, and the floor is yours for three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome, sir. The floor is yours for three minutes.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Welcome. The floor is yours for three minutes.

Thank you very much. Welcome, sir. The floor is yours for three minutes.

testimony. Your time has expired. Was Mr. Cody Harm with us? No? Okay. Members, do you have any questions for this panel?

For Mr. Valentines, you talked about outages and that they were carved out in this amendment. Has our state had one or any other states, and what happened because of those, if there were? Mr. Valentinas.

Madam Representative, just last year, the state of Nevada's background check system was down for three consecutive weeks. citizens were more vulnerable to becoming victims during those three weeks than any others and for those on the committee who care about FFLs the FFLs could not do business but most importantly citizens could not defend themselves and the system was hobbled it's something that we shouldn't be making arrangements for here in the state of Colorado

Mr. Valentinas.

Right now, that clause is one of the largest threats that the amended bill poses. But the bill itself is – I hate to use this word to be cliche, but it is largely duplicative. There's barely anything being changed by this legislation. And the system, while not perfect, guarantees background checks in its current form. And so Rocky Mountain Gunners is to remain opposed to this legislation.

Yes, ma'am. The information I'm referring to is from the National Incident Criminal Background Check System. Their 2024 operational report is on the FBI website, the U.S. Department of Justice website. It's the most recent one. They go back decades. To answer your question, as of then, there were 31 states, all the U.S. territories, District of Columbia. 15 states are what they call point of contact at kind of the middleman, like Colorado. They include California, Hawaii, many others. As far as outages, I'd have to get the exact number, but they have had an outage that accounts for less than 1% of their time. Almost everybody actually uses what's called their E-System, which is 24-7, all 365 days. There is no downtime. If they must make a phone call, that is 19 hours a day, and the only day off is Christmas. By the way, I think I said the busiest day is the day before Thanksgiving. they're not off on Thanksgiving. That's a lot of work. And then one final note, it may be helpful for you to know, and I don't know why this would be this way, but everything goes to them even through Colorado. So their stats for the number of checks done from 2024 back to 2001 are in every case over 100,000 checks different than what our stats show for this state. In many cases, that's a 30 to 50% difference. I understand your concern about this amendment, but I think a bigger concern would be to find out, are there 100,000 checks that somehow aren't happening? I mean, I don't know, because the difference is FBI, for example, 2024, 477,002 checks, Colorado, according to their stats, 338,863, and is like this going back 20 years. I have it all right here. It was quite surprising. I don't know what that means.

Well, unfortunately, I found out about it.

I'm sorry. Yes, first time doing this. Unfortunately, I found this out about 9 o'clock last night. I mean, I was going to have a nice, enjoyable day. And so I stayed up until 1 in the morning doing a lot of research. Hey, let's look into this, open-minded, really. And the more I looked into it, the more I saw conflicting information, especially since it appears the Bureau can already do the flexible hours as long as they stay within that 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. you're in a very difficult financial situation. I don't know the original logic for being point of contact. Maybe after all these years, it's time to look at a new direction. It could certainly free up quite a bit of money. They do a lot of other background checks, but the bulk of the work is this. It likely could help you move budgetary funds like you had to do from 24 to 25. I think it was 3 million. and you made great progress in your case workload, but how do you maintain it? And from everything I've seen on the documents now, the ask is at least $1 million for this year, and that's after a gigantic increase in the budget already for the whole Bureau. So I hope that helps create a solution instead of a problem.

Seeing none, thank you all so much for your time. Our next panel is Forrest Jones, Alicia Garcia, Michael White, Seth Stern, Huey Laugson, and Daniel Fenelson. Let start with Michael White Please come off mute and the floor is yours for three minutes

from it. So with that, I yield the rest of my time. Thank you very much. Let's go on to Alicia Garcia. Welcome. Oh, I can't hear you. You need to take yourself off mute.

Your time has expired. We're going to move on to Seth Stern. Please come off mute. And the floor is yours for three minutes.

All right. Next up, Daniel Fellison.

Thank you very much. Members, what questions do you have for this panel?

Representative Bottoms and then Bradley and then Luck.

Mr. Fellison.

Representative Ottoms.

Mr. Fellinson.

comes to this amendment. Last follow-up, Representative Bottoms, and then we're going to move to the

Mr. Fellenson.

Representative Luck.

I'm so sorry. Who was your question for? Mr. Fenlison. Sorry, I keep messing up your last name. Please know it's not personal.

Representative Luck.

Mr. Stern.

You're doing great.

So please go ahead.

Thank you very much. Our time has expired for this panel, but I did want to make sure, Representative Bradley, that you're able to ask your question because I did call your name previously. So please ask your question quickly.

Thank you so much, Ms. Garcia. And thank you to the rest of the members of this panel. We are going to move on to our final panel that is a support panel, including Adam. Oh boy, this last name. Adam Gawadowski, sorry, Dan Foles, Becky Hsu, and John Doe. Welcome. Welcome to you both. I believe both of you are from CBI, is that correct? Okay, cool. I just wanted to make sure that members know that, so I believe we've got a number of questions and clarifications that would probably be useful to this conversation. Who would like to begin? Okay.

I'm so sorry. Your time for testimony is expired. We'll be able to continue to engage when we get to the questions section. Okay? Thank you, Madam Chair. Please state your name for the record and provide your testimony. You have three minutes.

Well, that was easy. Hold on. Oh, okay. Just kidding. I'll continue on with his testimony.

All right. Really quickly, just want to do a last call for anybody else that may be in the room that wishes to provide testimony. You can come forward at this time. Okay. I'm not seeing anybody else jump up. Thank you. We're going to move to questions.

I don't have anything else. I just want to thank you for being here to make sure that those points were clear today. we only have about a minute 30 left but I recognize that this is a critical part of the conversation that we're having so I'm going to expand the amount of time that we have here we'll go to representative espinos and then we'll come over to representative luck

Follow-up, Representative Espinoza.

Representative Luck.

Wonderful. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Locke.

With that, the testimony phase is now closed.

we have been talking quite a bit about amendment l-002 did you want to move forward with it

I'm going to give Espinosa that one. Sorry, Carter. Do you want to tell us anything else about the amendment beyond what we've already discussed?

Members, any questions or comments about the amendment? Okay. I'm not seeing any. Is there any objection to adopting amendment L2? Okay. Seeing objection.

Are there any further amendments?

Committee, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is now closed. Bill wrap-up. Who would like to begin?

Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank my co-prime sponsor for all of his work that he has put on this particular policy, everyone who came to testify on our behalf, and for all of you. I just want to remind you that this bill has nothing to do with waiting periods. it doesn't change or modify anything whatsoever to do with those waiting periods. And, you know, I've been in this building for eight years, and I've never seen such a lack of professionalism or the spreading of misinformation by an organization than I've seen on this particular bill, especially toward my co-prime sponsor here. And it's really disappointing to me. so I would hope moving forward that that would stop and we could focus on the policy at hand and I will stop at that and just ask for a yes vote thank you

Members, any closing comments?

Well, Rep. Herzog, I know you never would have signed on a bill if you thought that it was going to cause the types of issues that have been – that I have read about the last couple of days.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. This conversation has been an interesting one. Lots of different things have come up and come forward. Some of the things that I still am concerned about with respect to this bill, if we're opening the door for CBI to have a submission portal that doesn't automatically translate into processing because they don't have people in the building to process, which is what is driving this conversation, then it seems to me that we should take them up on their seeming desire to make it a 24-hour system and allow for that to happen, especially since the bill that was put forth in 2023 did indeed say that once that check was initiated, that's when the three days tolls. I am concerned about the notwithstanding language. When I read that the first time, I read that in terms of even when there are unforeseen and unavoidable background check system outages that the Bureau should still allow for the submission. And so I'd like to see if there is a way to do that in this day and age of lots of technology to still allow for them to submit it and for that toll to begin to process through. I'm also concerned about there not being any language that reverts this whether it's a sunset so we can look at it again or some sort of language that says in the event that the three-day waiting period is struck down that this doesn't apply because then we are in other territory right we are looking at it and so for those reasons while this continues forward I will be a no today. Any other closing comments?

Representative Bottoms? No. Bradley? No. Carter? Yes. Espinosa? Yes. Bray? Yes. Froelich? Yes. Luck? No. Quinn? Yes. Ricks? Yes. Clifford? Yes. Madam Chair? Yes. House Bill 1302 as amended passes on a vote of 8 to 3. Thank you both.

Haven't seen either of you in this committee.

Assistant Minority Leader Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee. I'm really excited to bring this bill with you with my co-sponsor, who is a veteran, and I'm honored to sit next to him. Anybody that's willing to put their life on the line for this country deserves that respect. So it's an honor to be on this bill with him. Senate Bill 2688. This bill was born and working out a legislation that after we engaged with several veterans organizations who were distressed by the poor upkeep of the veteran memorials in Lincoln Park, As they looked into the state's role and upkeep, they realized there was a better way to ensure that the park and monuments within the park are well taken care of and properly honor the sacrifice veterans have made for our country. The bill before you today provides a long-term strategy for addressing memorials and monuments on the Capitol grounds, Lincoln and Veterans Park, without additional costs to the state by utilizing the professional historical collection expertise of staff at History of Colorado. The legislation builds on Senate Bill 25287 and House Bill 241442, which place the historical collections of the Capitol and surrounding grounds into the Colorado collection that is stewarded by History Colorado. As we talked to these groups, it was ultra important because I think it's important that we have a place for our children to come and visit. I think it's important that they have a place to come and read and look and learn about the people that help build and create this great nation and keep it a free nation. And I think that it's our duty to make sure that these monuments outlast time and memorial and that they're here for as long as they can be and that they look good for the public. That way these kids can feel confident when they come here and they look at these monuments that they're going to be here for generations to come. And I would like to turn it over to my co-prime.

Any questions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Bradley, for the question. To our understanding, this is History Colorado making that recommendation. Again, if they see something that, you know, may not need maintenance that particular year or if it's looking in good condition, then they don't have to make that or they may not have to maintain it that particular year and then being able to focus their attention and efforts into the monuments that do need that in that particular year.

Assistant Minority Leader Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Bradley, for asking the question. I think that's part of it by repealing the Preservation Trust Committee, and they're putting it within history, Colorado, so that's the first part. But I think that the other important thing is they're going to actually have to submit an annual report of condition and what maintenance has been done. Right now there's about $155,000 sitting in there. And to get these memorials up to date before the 150th anniversary, we're looking at about $70,000, $75,000. That's going to go to the monuments. There already been bids put in for the amount of repair that going to need but I think that was one of the important things as we looked over this bill is to make sure that the plan stays within the plan that they do these audits to show exactly where that money's going and how it's being used and what repairs are being made.

I'm sorry, Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. So two pieces to that, Representative Bradley. Well, the first one, to answer your previous question, so this also directs another check on this is, you know, for the Capitol Building Advisory Committee that they have on that. And so, one, it makes sure that any new memorials or monuments that are put up have that accountability piece that they have to show not only the initial setup costs, but then also what that maintenance is going to be, not just for that first or second year, but the lifetime of the monument, what those costs are going to be. So I think that that adds a level of transparency into this, and that way we are being up front of what those costs are. And so, again, and I think that kind of answers your second question as well, too, of where they're going to.

It's the bottom of page five in subsection C. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Espinoza. So we will actually defer to History Colorado. That way they can put in exactly where they're expending it and how they're expending those funds just because it's coming or we're shifting the focus away from the trust and back into History Colorado.

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Luck. Again, I think we'll defer to History of Colorado on what the logic was on the 20-year window.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Dawn DePrince. I serve as the President and CEO for History Colorado and also serve as our State Historic Preservation Officer. I am here to support to express support for Senate Bill 88 The bill provides a number of practical solutions to enable the state to honor our collective commitments to the monuments and memorials on Capitol Grounds and Veterans Park You know we were created by the state founders in 1879 to collect and care for Colorado's history and memory. We currently oversee over 15 million objects in the state's collection, including those that are part of the Capitol's historic collection. If this bill passes, History Colorado's skilled professional staff is ready to guide the effort and begin to work as early as possible to accomplish as much as we can during this Colorado's 150th birthday year. It is a very practical bill. There is no fiscal note as you have heard. It makes it easier to utilize this existing fund which is, you know, created with private donations and there are mechanisms to provide long-term care oversight and funding. As you know, we take our work very seriously and we think as Coloradans and Americans we have an obligation to maintain and care for our monuments and memorials. We currently have the tools, the funds and the expertise to make it happen but this bill is the missing ingredient. So we urge your support and History Colorado is ready to get started. We are also happy to answer any of the questions you may have. I also have Chris Creighton who is our CFO here to answer some of the financial questions as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And the sponsors have asked that you answer these questions. So if you could explain how the bill was drafted in regard to the 20-year only, how you see that playing out, and also with the expenditures in that same subsection being for 27-28, which is way past the anniversary that we're celebrating and that I think you would want to be repairing these monuments more. So I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

Representative Luck and then Carter. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you can you help me understand the 20-year

Representative Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my question is who determines, regarding dipping into the principle, who determines or who has that fiduciary duty, what is needed and what is not needed? Is there a board or is it just you as a director?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And just by way of one follow-up, sorry, over here again. Do you want an additional set of monuments? I mean, $15 million is quite a lot to be managing. Do you want this task?

Representative Ricks and then Vice Chair Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just questions. How will History Colorado ensure that stakeholder input especially from the veterans will be heard after the trust committee is repealed Ms DePrince Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. That is a great question. I think that that is not something

ensure that that is part of that currently. Representative Ricks. And then also, could the 5% maintenance requirement unintentionally discourage smaller or community driven projects? Memorial projects. Mr. Prince. Yes, thank you for that question. You know, I've seen, I serve on the Capitol Building Advisory Committee, and I have seen a number of these projects come through. And I find that they're all fundraising, and so this would be a slightly additional fundraising need. But I think in terms of the idea that it would create a, you know, care for the monument in perpetuity, that additional, you know, when you're fundraising for a certain amount of money and you've got to fundraise for like 5% more, and then you have a sense that the state is going to then take care of it in perpetuity, that becomes a pretty good fundraising argument. I don't think the kinds of groups that we have seen are going to see this as like such an arduous obstacle that it's going to prevent, you know, their ability to get over the finish line. Vice Chair Clifford. I'm going to start with just the appreciation, you know, being new on the Capitol Building Advisory Committee. It opened my eyes to how many areas of things like taking care of our monuments and your engagement to make sure that things are well cared for around here. History Colorado has taken on. Do you mind sharing a little bit more of the breadth of the things that you do for us? Misty Prince. Yes, thank you. Yes, so History Colorado is the state historical society. We've been around since 1879, just three years younger than the state of Colorado itself. And we really were intended to be the keeper of the state's memory. People sometimes think of us as museums, but museums are secondary to the work we do as these generational memory keepers. we did take on several bills that ensured that all of the historic belongings that are in the Capitol now have become part of the collection that History Colorado is the stewards of. We wanted to make sure that those were properly cared for, inventoried, conserved, including the monuments and memorials. We also care for, you know, 11 museums and historic sites across the state of Colorado, a 15 million object collection. We steward the state historic fund which has been around for over 30 years and has given funding in 64 counties We run the State Historic Preservation Office We take our work very seriously as the stewards of you know history of the history of Colorado. And, you know, for many of us who have been generationally here in Colorado, my family, six generations in southern Colorado, as I've got some southern Colorado friends up here. So, you know, we just take this work very seriously, not just for our ancestors, but of course for those who come after us. So thank you for that question. Thank you all so much for your time and your testimony. We are, you can get up and you can run away, you can slowly get up however you want to do that, but the testimony phase is now closed. Do you have any amendments? Great. All right. Committee, any amendments? No? All right. Seeing none, the amendment phase is now closed. Bill, wrap up. Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee members. This is just a bill that I feel really just makes sense, and it puts the people in charge of maintaining our veterans' memorials and monuments at the hands of the people that do it best. And, you know, I can vouch for what Director DePrince had said. You know, we have a ton of spots down in southern Colorado that's four hours away from the Capitol that are absolutely maintained and does well. And so if they can do that south in the San Luis Valley, I have the utmost confidence that they'll be able to do that here, right here on the Capitol grounds. And making sure that, again, our veterans memorials and monuments are maintained, that they look their best, and really honoring our veterans in wars past and wars future. And I think that this just makes sense. There's accountability pieces already built into the bill on reporting and being able to making sure that there is a check on what has happened already with it and also moving forward what's going on with them. And that way the legislature always does have that ability to intervene if necessary and being able to get that follow-up check. And so this is a really good bill. It passed unanimously out of the Senate. And we hope that we can get the same vote here. So we urge an aye vote. Assistant Minority Leader Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. And like Rep Clifford, I've been sitting on Capitol Development Committee, and it's unbelievable to see what the state's involved in in upkeep and maintaining not only our state buildings, but things such as the park and the monuments. I've been part of many discussions about the monuments around the Capitol and in the park, and it's an honor to be on this bill. I mean, you take a look at D.C. and all the monuments we have and how people go, and they're attracted to seeing those because they want to know our history, and I think that we have that inside of our state right here, and we see the school buses parked all the time outside of the gallery, and we see these kids looking at these things, and, you know, I think it's important, and I think that, you know, there's a lot of things we have in our history, and I think there's some things that we should really uplift, and I have the utmost respect for veterans, and that's why when we were looking to have a co-sponsor on this bill, Representative Martinez was the first in mind, and I think it's a good way to honor our veterans and also keep our Capitol grounds and the park across the street looking beautiful. So when the people of Colorado do come here to visit, they know we're putting time and effort where it should be, and that's with the history of this state. So with that, I urge a yes vote. Vice Chair Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26088 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation Almost none of those words came out right Seconded by Representative Bradley. Members, do you have any closing comments? Vice Chair Clifford. You know, my closing comment is just a heartfelt thank you to History Colorado for always stepping up. This is not the only place. the many, many conversations and areas that you're in for making sure that these things are well preserved and managed. And to be in a conversation where you're formally doing that here on these monuments, I want to make sure that you hear from the General Assembly how much we appreciate you taking it on. So thank you. Representative Carter. Go Army, beat Navy. Okay. Anything else? Representative, was that a I want to speak? I'm going to elevate myself. This is what happens when we have two bookends. Well, we'll have a restorative conversation afterwards. All right. With that, I'm not seeing any final comments. So Ms. King, please poll the committee. Representatives Bottoms. Yes. Bradley, yes. Carter. Yes. Espinosa. Yes. Bray. Yes. Rolick. Yes. Luck. Yes. Wynn. Yes. Ricks. Yes. Clifford. Yes. Adam Chair. Yes. Senate Bill 88 passes on a vote of 11 to 0. Congratulations. Thank you both. All right. Assistant Minority Leader Winter, you stay right there. Representative Martinez, smell you later. Wendy's on the voice. Okay. All right, the committee will stand in a brief recess while we wait for our other bill sponsor. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome Representative Lindsey. I believe that you and Assistant Minority Leader Winter are here for House Bill 1304. Who would like to begin? Thank you, Madam Chair. It's been a long time. So long indeed. Myself and Rep. Lindsey are here to present House Bill 1304, which was borne out of Capital Development Committee. this bill it authorizes history colorado to sell mineral holdings which were donated to them in 1966 the mineral rights history colorado is looking to dispose are in wild county in west virginia history colorado has received minimal royalties from both holdings over the last 50 years their current market interest in these holdings and given that history colorado is not in a position to exact minerals sorry extract minerals facilitate development of mineral extraction or enhance opportunities for the extraction of minerals, we feel that the best financial option for history Colorado is to be able to sell these holdings, which would alleviate history Colorado from administrative obligations and liabilities associated with these holdings. Representative Lindsay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. I never get to come over here for state affairs, so this is exciting, and I'm going to see you like three whole times this week. So thank you for having us. As Rep Winter said, this comes out of Capital Development Committee, which is one of my favorite things that I feel lucky to get to do, especially with Rep Winter on there. And we do a lot of touring of state facilities. And a couple years back we went to the History Colorado storage facility up off of I in Pecos that is just brimming with all these amazing treasures from our state history and yet it in a building that really needs some serious repair especially considering the treasures that it holds And so over the last few years, History Colorado has been trying to solve this problem, figure out a new space, or renovate this space. And almost straight out of a Dickensian novel where some long-lost benefactor comes up, these mineral rights, we learned about these mineral rights that were just sitting there and at a very opportune time when History of Colorado is in desperate need for funding so that we can take care of our history, well, here they are. And we've determined, like you said, it's better to sell them than to keep them, and so we ask for an aye vote. Can I just say AML Winter? Is that cool? because I've been really trying to say it, and it's a tongue twister, and I want to give you the recognition you deserve. Okay. All right. Great. AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to clarify for the record that the mineral rights, there's a competitive bidding process around this, so there was no winners or losers picked. It wasn't set to go somewhere. There's an actual competitive bidding process, and I just wanted to put that on the record. All right. Any questions? Representative Espinoza and then Representative Luck and then Bradley. Sorry, let me swallow. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sponsors, I just have a couple of questions. One, I just want to clarify for the record that looking at the bill, it looks like the first mineral rights were deeded in 1980 and the second were in 2012, not in the 60s, so we're looking at more recent mineral right holdings than what was in the opening statement. So that's just my premise for the record. But then the second question is, although this will be a competitive process, my question, and there's no indication in the fiscal note, is there any understanding of what these rights might be receiving if we do go to bid with them and any accounting of how much the History of Colorado has already spent to maintain them? Representative Lindsey. Thank you. I will say History of Colorado, and thank you for the question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, Rep Espinosa. History of Colorado anticipates anywhere from $700,000 to $800,000 from the sale of these proceeds that will come from a one-time strategic investment in capital. But you would have to ask them, and they are here, for the difference in keeping them. Because that number, I actually don't know, but maybe Rep Winter does. AML Winter. Thank you, Rep Espinosa. So I was just informed that Mrs. Bain, she actually had put them in her will in the 60s, but they weren't actually deeded from the will until the 80s on that number right there. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you guys for this bill. I just want to know whether or not you all discussed leasing these rights. Is there a way to have a continual revenue stream from the leasing of them? I don't know this area well enough to know how that works, but I know in water we have water rights that we lease out, And so I'm just wondering, AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Look, I'm going to do my best to answer that question. As you all know, we sit through a million committees, and that was a long time ago in CDC. If I remember correctly, they had received some minimal royalties. It's just I don't think that they have the ability within history Colorado to be able to handle that administrative duty on top of it. So if I remember right from CDC they just didn have the capacity or I don want to say wherewithal the capacity or maybe the knowledge to be able to manage something like these mineral rights if I remember correctly. But when they come up, maybe they can add more to that. Was there a follow-up reply? Yeah, go ahead. Thank you, Manager. Thank you for that answer. I'm just wondering, in the event that there would be a possibility for revenue sources, Was there, like, I'm just thinking if we could have something that is long-term generating of funds that is directed, whether there would be any appetite for, like, CDPHE or some other group to administer and those dollars to flow back into this account, whether any of that was discussed, or if not, whether there would be any appetite for that kind of idea. Representative Lindsay. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Luck. I think those discussions were had initially when this came to light, that these were here. Part of the concern is there is an urgent need right now to spend a good chunk of money to solve the storage problem. And so continuing to keep these things, it's just like a trickle of funding over the long term that will never be enough to make any headway to repair this building. and I think I went on a tour maybe in 2022 was my first tour and as a lover of antiques and old things in history I cannot tell you how many times I literally wake up at night worried about this facility and these things and the things that we can do about it and I'm not even as much of a history buff as you know the people who do this every day so there is an urgent an urgent need to safeguard that collection, and the best way to do that is by selling the rights for that one chunk sum right now. Okay. Any other questions? Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to follow up based on the good representative's question. My guess would be in terms of other departments or agencies having access to this that was not really considered because the gifts were deeded to History of Colorado. Is that correct? AML Winter. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. They were deeded. And I think that on top of that, I agree with Rep. Lindsay when she says the urgency to get this done. I think in one of the talks that we had, there's like one of the first earthen or sod homes in this building and it's a leaky roof. And to be frank, I don't know where we would get any money off of mineral rights off of this in the near future for the simple fact is we don't drill for oil and gas anymore. So maybe with the direction we're going, it might be best to get this money where we can before the value of that dollar leaves. I'm not seeing any other questions. I have just a curiosity, and if you don't know, that's okay. I'm happy to direct my question to the witness. How in the world did we end up with mineral rights in West Virginia? AML Winter. So they were part of Ms. Bain's estate. She was a philanthropist who left, I'm sure, a lot more than just the mineral rights, if I remember from the meeting. But I think that they were just part of her estate, maybe through her family. She had picked them up as well. But you should ask the question about her because she's a real interesting lady. Wonderful. Okay. Well, with that, let's move into witness testimony. Thank you both. We have one individual signed up, Mr. Chris Creighton from History Colorado. Welcome back. And then if there is anybody else with us in person that was just provide testimony please come forward at this time Welcome The floor is yours for three minutes Thank you Madam Chair Chris Creighton History Colorado CFO We appreciate your consideration of this bill today and all of the great questions Honestly the questions and answers make most of my testimony moot so I can just try to answer some of the questions and we can move forward to ask any other questions you have I can give you this I want to hold this up This is a picture of Eleanor Bain as Representative Winter mentioned She passed away in 1966 and through her will she donated these mineral rights which we're referring to in the bill of section 28 in Weld County to history Colorado. And she was a she lived in Berthold, Colorado. She was actually went to University of Colorado and she was the Berthold National Bank Director from 1936 to 1963 before she retired. So she had quite a long history up in that area as well. So we're very honored that she thought of us in her will, and we wanted to also honor her by sharing her picture and just putting the face to the name in this. Over the summer, we did hire a consultant to help us review our mineral holdings and really understand all of our options with them. Do we hold on to them? Do we try to sell? If we do sell, what does that look like? What is the competitive bidding process? Because as you heard a little bit ago from CEO and President DePrince, we do a lot of things, but minerals and overseeing mineral rights is not a part of our core mission. So as we explore this, we did an analysis. If the rights up in, well, county, Section 28, are developed, there would be royalties that come from those, but those would be over a period of 25 to 50 years. whereas if we sell now while there is significant market interest, we can maximize on that sell and we can use it for the collection care needs that we do have. So that was part of the process. We used a consultant to explore those and arrive at this decision. And the rights in West Virginia were kind of an odd one. They were deeded to us in 2012 but miscoded, misdeeded. So we didn't even find out about these until 2024. They actually came through St. Elizabeth's Retreat Chapel. and an oil and rights analyst identified that they were misdeeded and then made a correction and then they came to us. Those rights have already been developed. They stopped drilling in 2020 is my understanding. So it's a slightly different story, but we don't really have a need to administer these rights. So this authority would allow us to move off of that obligation. Thank you very much, Mr. Creighton. I want to go ahead and also bring up our bill drafter, Caroline Martin. I believe that we have another potential question for you. So with that, members, what questions do you have for Mr. Creighton and then also Ms. Martin? We'll start with Representative Wynn, and we'll just work our way down. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the information. My question is always going to be about a hypothetical of if we don't pass this bill. And my question then stems from what happens to the land if we just don't sell the mineral rights. So, yeah. Mr. Creighton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. We wait, and we see if they are developed, and we wait for royalties, or we potentially try again. But it's a passive approach because we don't have any way to push the development. We don't have any way to prevent development either. So it's just a waiting game and you see if it's developed and then we make sure we understand that and we get the royalties that come in through that process that could happen in three years, five years, 30 years. We wouldn't know. Representative. So what is the estimated value of the Weld County and West Virginia mineral rights, and how was that valuation determined? Mr. Creighton. Thank you again, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. It really comes to market value. It's what would you get in a competitive bidding process. So I was coached by our consultant that the estimated value is minimal because it's what we've currently received from that, And there actually is a lease on the Section 28 manure rights that was put on several years ago. So we received a little bit of lease revenue from those, less than $5,000 since we've held on to these. That is what we've been told is the current value. And then it's the market value based on the oil and gas industry and how likely this area of land is to be developed and how soon that may or may not be. And it is in an active basin. So that is currently driving up the value. And as was previously said, we estimate that through that bidding process, we'll get up to $800,000 as a result of the disposition. Representative Ricks. And just a follow-up. So that $800,000 compared to maybe royalties over a longer time period, how does that compare and what type of analysis was done on that? Mr. Creighton. Thank you again for the question. A very complicated analysis that we had to hire somebody else. And I'm pretty good with numbers, but they do a very different multilayered analysis based on do they drill from two miles away, three miles? How much do they extract from it? It really does depend on how much they extract from it. It was a comparable – the numbers were comparable through 2050 based on what we felt we could get if we sold now. So we made the determination it was in our best interest and in the donors' wishes to maximize the use of these because the opportunity exists today and right now to do that. Okay. Representative Espinoza, did you have a question? Okay. Vice Chair Clifford. In 45 minutes or less, can you tell us about Ms. Bain? I think he meant seconds. Mr. Creighton, thank you. Yes, thank you for that. I will not speak for 45 minutes. I really think just what I said earlier, she is from Colorado. She lived up in the Berthad area. She went to University of Colorado, served as the Berthad National Bank director for 30 years, almost 30 years, which is very impressive. That's really the bulk of the knowledge. I'm happy to pass around some information if you'd like and connect you to any other additional information you would be interested to know. And we just really appreciate her and her family for considering us as part of her estate. Rep Bradley do you have a question for a question luck hit it thank you Madam Chair I know so much excitement all around the committee dais so excited okay so sir I have a question for you related to any other rights that History Colorado owns apart from these do you guys have any other rights that you manage Mr. Creighton thank you for your question most notably we do own some rights underneath one of our properties Fort Vasquez those rights were purchased from CDOT for a grand total of $10 I think in 1956 circa 1956 we don't see the benefit of selling those rights those rights actually might be drilled and because they're directly underneath one of our properties and that's a state property that we would be working closely with the CDC on we feel it's in our best interest to hold on to those so section 28 is our most notable ones and then West Virginia is not in the state. So it just feels like this is something we want to explore and we need to set authorization for Representative Locke Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for that answer My question also is for the bill drafter Ms Martin I never seen a bill like this before right? It's not being added anywhere. It's not in capital letters. It's not a resolution. It's a bill. So can you just tickle my rules mind and statutory revisions committee excitement and and explain why this is done this way? Ms. Martin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep Block. Caroline Martin, Legislative Legal Services. Yes, so this bill is not going to appear in statute, but it is still a bill that's directing History of Colorado to dispose of the mineral rights in a certain way, and I can give you a list of four bills from the past that disposed of mineral rights in a similar manner where it wasn't included in statutory text. I can provide the bill numbers if you'd like. One of those is HB 231141, but this is kind of the process through which it's done. Any further questions? Representative Carter, you want to get in there? Perfect. All right. With that, thank you all so much for your time and your testimony. The witness phase is now closed. Amendments. Bill sponsors. Any amendments? Rep. Lindsay.

All right. Committee, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is now closed. Bill wrap up. Who would like to start? AML Winter. Good bill. Vote yes. Love the brevity. Representative Lindsay.

Wonderful. Vice Chair Clifford, do you want to make a motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I do. I move House Bill 261304 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Second. Seconded by Representative Foray. Any closing comments? Representative Carter. Thank you to all the members as well as Madam Chair. First of all, I want to thank History Colorado. When we first moved here, I had three kids all within about four years of each other. So I've been to History Colorado on a regular basis. I've been through the sandstorm. I've been to Lincoln Heights. I've been to the giant map on the floor. The things that History Colorado is preserving and what this is going to allow them to preserve is stuff that we need to be thinking about and what we need to be looking at. And it is a great place. We even got the barrel man. It's a great place. Please, please, please, I think if you have not been, you should go. And if you take a kid and look at history through one of the child's eyes, I am going to be a yes. Thank you very much. I'm not seeing any other hands. So with that, Miss King, please pull the committee. Representatives, Bottoms. Yes. Bradley. Yes. Carter. Yes. Espinoza. Yes. Hooray. Yes. Krolich. Yes. Luck Yes Yes Wynn Yes Ricks Yes Clifford Yes Adam Chair Yes. House Bill 1304 passes unanimously. We got you. Thank you very much. Two for three ain't bad. All right. We are going to move on to Senate Bill 59 with Representative Lindsay. All right. Take it away. Tell us about your bill.

Members, what questions do you have? Okay, I was going to say we can start over here and work our way around. Go ahead, Representative Bradley. I've already threatened, so thank you. I'm just wondering because I see where you're coming from with this bill, but I'm kind of playing devil's advocate. Has there ever been a problem? Have constituents ever brought a problem forward? Let's say if somebody was on city council and also an elected state house representative or senator. has there ever been a problem brought forward because of a duly elected position? Rep. Lindsay.

you want to representative carter thank you madam chair you're welcome so i just got a couple of questions and so you're you're saying that do you want a dialogue would that be easier if it's okay yeah please so you're saying the community came to you and said that there were issues with an individual or multiple individuals serving in both the legislature and the city council? Or were there specific combinations that were issues? And we're dialoguing, I guess. Yes, there is a specific example of somebody making or sharing concerns about that particular situation, yes. With city council? City council, yes. Now, understanding that most municipalities, some municipalities already have something in the charter indicating whether or not an individual can serve both in the state legislature and the city council, why would we need a bill when the those city council members already have the opportunity to pass a law? Because some city councils have those rules, but not all city councils. But everybody who's a state representative is under the umbrella of the state. So to us, that makes sense that every representative is following kind of the same structural guidelines of serving here and elsewhere and not counting on the cities to decide whether that member, based on their own city law, can serve or not. And understanding that this is supposedly a part-time position, why wouldn't an individual be allowed – why would we step in as a legislature and stop an individual from serving their community if it's on a part-time basis? And I want you to specifically think about water boards, HOAs, and school boards.

I don't understand why we are trying to co-opt the will of the people. If an individual is elected by their city council and say, And say we're out in Hugo. I do a lot of work out in Hugo. Hugo in Burlington. And individuals elected by the city council, and they're also elected by their constituents to be in the House. Why are we co-opting the will of the people? Those people have chosen that's who they want. Why are we stepping in and saying they can't make that decision? A couple of pieces from the legislative portion and as members who understand the nature of this work, I think that there is concern about the time commitment, being able to do it, and also any potential conflicts of interest of doing this as a state job could conflict with somebody and policy that was being run on a city level. I see that I serve on transportation and local government, and there's often discussion about what somebody's wanting for policy at a state level. County commissioners, city councilors come in and say, actually, we hate this bill, and we don't want that at all. So if you have a member of the state assembly or general assembly who's also serving on the state or the city council in their city, there is a conflict potentially of not even just listening to a city and considering all the pieces, but they are actively also sitting on the board of a city council, and that is just a conflict of interest. What about if an individual were sitting on a school board?

But how do you tell those small rural communities who they can and cannot elect? Well, I think we pass legislation here. that is part of what we do is as a state knowing the responsibility of this particular job that the legislators who have put forward this policy are saying based on what we know and the responsibility of the role that we have that we are proposing this legislation because we think this is the best thing for good governments as it pertains to being a state representative.

Last, briefly. Last question. One. Grab Carter. The example you gave me is the only one that has come through a vacancy committee. period. And two, you still have not explained to me why you believe this legislature should co-opt the will of the people that are in that district. Representative Lindsay.

Other questions from the committee? Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Madam. Chair This is partly putting things on the record that we had discussions about before Representative Lindsay thank you so much for bringing the bill before us As we discussed sometimes the timing doesn seem to work And as I've looked at the original bill and the enrolled bill, it seems like there was a strike below in the Senate, which totally recognized some of the issues that existed with regard to timing. Originally, the bill was based on certification of when the election happened, as opposed to assumption of office and the duties when the conflicts that you've described would come into to being. However, because this bill is focused on the obligation of the state representative's acceptance of term, as we've discussed, it fails to address the fact that municipalities and school board elections may be in the off cycle, not in the November cycle, with people taking office in July or August or some other time based on city and county charters. So there's a concern that arises in this circumstance, and I'm just going to base it on my own House District 4. My predecessor, once removed, a representative of Solana Gonzalez-Guterres, indicated that she could not step down from her dual position, even though she had been elected to the city council. She was sworn into the city council. She was elected in April, sworn in in July, but maintained her state representative position in a time when we were not in session and they're therefore theoretically not subject to a conflict of interest period because of insurance. And I think, you know, I know your response will be partly this is why we need universal insurance. That's not the issue today. I want to know how we're supposed to be addressing that if we're closing off the opportunity for people to be in two positions if they're not just coming into the state office, which I think to the point your answer to Rep. Carter could have been you're not cutting off the community, you're cutting off the individuals seeking office so that they shouldn't be holding too many offices. So to the extent that we're regulating the state representative, it doesn't take into account the issue of people leaving us because they can't afford to work for the state and moving into those other positions. How can you address that in this legislation?

And then secondarily, I do see in the strike below from the Senate, and we've discussed this briefly, that there is an exception for special district elected offices, and I guess my concern with that is that firefighters have the same kind of conflict of interest as people in a special district. Metro districts would have the same exact conflict as cities because they're under metro districts. Can you explain why the Senate chose to add that as an exception?

that were compelling enough to lead to a strike below. So. Representative Ricks. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow up on the conversation you had with Rep. Espinoza. Will the bill require a legislator to immediately resign in another office upon taking the oath or could there be a way of, you know, you know, making exceptions for certain

Any other questions? Representative Espinoza. Okay. Thank you. I just want to follow up on that because as I read Section 1, it does say they shall not hold any other elected office while serving as a member of the General Assembly. So it seems to me that upon taking the oath of the General Assembly, they would have to resign any other office that they held unless they fit in the exception that you described with regard to less than one year on their term. Is that correct?

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Representative Lindsay, we don't have anybody signed up to provide testimony, so I'll do a quick call. If there's anybody in the room that wishes to provide testimony, please come forward at this time. Not seeing a mad rush towards the table, so I will say that the testimony phase is now closed. Amendment phase. Representative Lindsay.

Okay. Committee, any amendments? Okay. Seeing none, the amendment phase is now closed. we'll wrap up. Representative Lindsay.

Thank you very much. Vice Chair Clifford, would you like to make a motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-13-20 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Second. Seconded by Representative Ferre. Any closing comments, members? Representative, we're going to start down this way again. Representative Carter. So, I understand why it was brought, but I don't believe the sponsors understand what they're actually asking for. At this point, there are almost a million students in the state of Colorado. They are governed by about 116 to 120 school boards. And on those school boards, there's about 1,200 different members of a school board. of those 1,200, three of them are black men. The reality is we do not get to go through the same process as everyone else. In order for me to get to this spot, I had to be something else. I had to be on a school board. I had to be on a metro district. In order to get here, the process looks different for all of us. I cannot be a part of closing off the process behind me just because somebody said they missed a meeting. Of the eight members of the Black Caucus, more than half came through this process. of the one who didn't that's one out of all the vacancy committees that have come through we don't get through vacancy committees so the likelihood of me vacating a spot and somebody who looks like me coming in is very unlikely why we are co-opting the ability of the populace to decide who they want to put here i do not know but it's their right and if hugo or Lyman or Berthold wants to make a rule saying that you can't serve both, then that's up to them. But why are we as the legislature reaching out and co-opting their ability to decide who they want to put up here? So I'm going to be a no. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for bringing this bill forward. You and I had a conversation beforehand. I told you I was good with the bill. I am curious to learn more about the situation that my colleague just mentioned, especially because I'm a little unclear as to timing, whether the experience is that you have to be currently seated in these positions in order then to be able to move on, or if it's enough to have served there first and then, you know, to move on after that time is up. I really would like to have that conversation offline to better understand. But for today I going to keep my word to be supportive of your bill I will also put on the record in my first year here we considered a bill to allow for folks to run for both an elected office like the state house and lieutenant governor. And while that bill went through the system, the governor vetoed it, and there were not enough votes to overcome that veto. And so we have made decisions, It's my understanding we already also have rules related to how many people can run for an office at the same time in the same election. So we already have spoken into this space. I think, you know, in the same way, flipping the argument that was just stated on its head, in the same way that a city might preclude the ability for someone to serve in both roles, that we as members can also say, you know what, we really would like to see our body comprised of people who are focused here and not focused other places. But as one of the only members who represents rural Colorado, I believe on this panel, I do have a concern about consolidation of power. I know what it's like when you live in a small community and the same guy is everything. And what that does to people who aren't friends with that guy or when there's conflict. And so to have off ramps for other people to seek redress from is important to me. It's also important to me to enable other people opportunities to serve in spaces. And when someone is well known, especially when their families are well known, it's hard to break through that in rural Colorado. It's hard to break through some of those institutional generational power structures. And so I do think that there is a value to something of this nature. And so today, like I said, I will be a yes. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the bill sponsor. I don't know where I am, quite honestly, because Rep from Penrose and I talk every morning and I kind of feel a little bit at odds with her because in rural Colorado, we had three county commissioners come up and sometimes in these small places, you just don't have anyone that wants to run. And so that person ends up being a little bit of everything. I'm struggling a little bit with, I think what you hear our caucus say is the nanny state. Why do we need this bill to kind of nanny the people, whether they want to run for two offices or not? And then I listened to, not the good, the representative on the end and the judge and their concerns that they're bringing forward. And that makes me have pause as well. So I appreciate you bringing it. I don't know where I'm going to be, and it's very odd that the rep from Penrose and I are at odds of our bills or different on a bill, but I appreciate you bringing it forward. Representative, we'll do Representative Espinoza. Thank you. I just want to say I will be a yes today to get this out of committee, but I really do hope we come to some solution. as this bill was already a strike below in the Senate. My concern is that your co-sponsors in the Senate are not going to be willing to address the concerns that I've raised because they've already addressed everything in the Senate. So I'm a little bit concerned about that. And if we can't get there on correcting some of these issues or at least identifying them, I won't be a yes on the floor. But I do think for today there's enough reason for us to have this debate because I think there are enough issues that the body should rule on this and make a determination as to whether this is something that we do want to have. If you recall, at the beginning of the session, we had another bill, the cleanup bill for elections, and there was an issue there with regard to whether or not this policy was being addressed in that cleanup and it was very clear that it was not And I at that time said that if it came forward in a bill I did think it would be worthy of discussion, and so that's why it will be a yes today. Representative Wynne. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you know, I'm in a unique position for this legislation because I came through a vacancy, and I was a Broomfield City Council member, And I had to vacate my own city council seat. And I understand that there is a conflict of interest because for Broomfield City Council, we're both county commissioners and city council. And so – and of course, I passed a charter ballot last year in 2025 to disqualify city council members from taking dual roles. So I had no choice but to resign. And so this is a unique situation, but I do believe in the idea that you should be focused in one public office and that having multiple positions could be a conflict of interest, so I'll be yesterday. So thank you so much for bringing this. Thank you. Vice Chair Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, my good colleague, Rep. Carter, I hear him when he talks, but I'm also struggling a little bit to see how this impacts his situation. So this is not impacting at all the fact that he ran for school board. It's not impacting that someone ran for an office and then got known and then ran for the General Assembly. I think that that's a pretty straightforward pathway. This doesn't break down the being able to run for those other offices. It just says that when you get here, this is the job, and that we expect you to let somebody else then take the other positions because this is the job. Um, you know, we've talked a lot about that piece, but for me, that is also the piece because, you know, to the opposite effect, um, I think that that then is the opportunity for somebody to assume a new role further down that chain and making sure that we are, um, not holding multiple offices. And I have seen him navigate that with grace. But I'm surprised that he was able to navigate it with grace. And we've talked about that multiple times before, like how the heck are you managing a school board job and this one? Because I couldn't. I can't. This is the job. So I have a deeper appreciation for what he's saying. And I'm certainly going to vote yes today to continue this dialogue, but I do want to continue to look with him and especially the Black Caucus if there's a concern there and really see to make sure that we are properly addressing any equity issues here if that exists. My struggle is that I don't see how we're doing that. I think once you get here, this is the job, you know. So I'm going to talk more with my colleagues after this, but certainly a yes for today. Any other closing comments? Okay, I did a double take just to make sure. I want to add in my thoughts here in this conversation I do very much appreciate you bringing the bill forward We had a really thought conversation and I appreciate members engaging I feel like many of you challenged me to think about things that I hadn't necessarily thought about in this context, and there are conversations that I want to have afterwards to really understand the perspective and peel back some of the layers here that are perhaps keeping people from elected office and to be a thought partner in making sure that, you know, our General Assembly is fully representative and reflective of Colorado. And, you know, at the same time, I do deeply believe in my core that democracy works best when we have diverse voices at the table. And if you have somebody who is holding two offices, are you really having the most diverse conversations that you could be having? And, you know, I think that, you know, I think of my own experience being elected to a city council and, you know, giving up that seat in order to serve in the state legislature. And I was proud and happy to do that. And I did it because I didn't want to try and do both jobs at the same time. I didn't feel like I was going to be able to give the most amount of time to either job in a way that it deserved. and I also stepped out and resigned because I trusted my community and I knew that there would be someone who was fully capable to step forward and take on the role. And that's exactly what happened. And I hear the concern that, especially in more rural and small communities, that there may just not be people who want to serve. And I think that should also be part of the question. Like, what is it about these elected offices that make people not want to serve? Is it the toxicity? Is it the pay? Is it the time? Like, what is it? And how do we influence those factors so that people can see themselves in this role and in this work? So I recognize and I hear that there are issues that still need to be addressed. And I think it's pretty safe to say that we can all agree that the Senate does not always get it right. And so I really do want to ask Rep. Lindsay to continue these conversations and really figure out how we make sure that we get this policy right, because it's going to impact, you know, our future colleagues and those that come afterwards. And we do have to make sure that it's the right policy solution. So I will be a yes for today and look forward to working through some of these outstanding issues with our colleagues. With that, Ms. King, please poll the committee.

Yes for today. Bradley. Yes for today. Carter. No. Espinoza. Yes for today. Bray. Yes. Brolich. Yes. Luck. Yes. Wynn? Yes. Ricks? Yes, for today. Clifford? Yes. Madam Chair? Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. HB 2632, 1320, is accessible language statutory ballot title requirements. The story of this bill is that, as we all know, ballots are extremely difficult to read. And when I first came in here, this pitch was essentially that we were going to lower the reading language of the ballot measures because currently, according to Ballotpedia, Colorado ranks the second most difficult ballots to read. You need approximately a PhD or a law degree to read ballots. And so initially, we were hoping to go through a reading level. Originally it was eighth grade, 12th grade, and gradually we just realized that it was very difficult to address this. So the measure that we're looking into with this puzzle is that we're going to try to just offer the ballot title board language that makes it accessible. And what that means really is that this is limited only to the ballot title board of the state of Colorado. And this allows for just ballot language as accessible. And so this ensures that voters know the impacts of the tax revenue increases and decreases, encourages transparency in how the state plans to use tax revenue. And, of course, in my eyes, this basically codifies the issue of accessible language in ballots. And so that is why I am supporting this bill. Good bill. Vote yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. There's one particular piece that I'll address as my co-prime spoke about the language accessibility piece, is also just the structure in which our ballot question drafters, essentially the title board, has to draft questions. Every single year we come forward with more and more requirements on what should be put into a ballot question. And many of these are very, very worthy and necessary. One of the challenges though with as we continue to add more and more requirements for different reasons is we're making it even harder for the title board to actually create a cohesive or a comprehensible question. And so one of the things that we are accomplishing in this bill is we are maintaining the requirement of the content that should be in a question, but we are removing the requirement of where in the question it should be. And so that gives more flexibility for drafting. And when you have more flexibility for drafting, you can focus on the cohesion of a statement and not on just following the rules of a question and how it should be drafted. And I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the bill sponsors. I have two questions. Just wondering how you're going to measure whether ballot titles are actually more understandable to voters under this bill. Representative Wynn. Thank you, Representative Bradley, for the question. Right now there is no requirements in Sagittarii right now So to give you an idea this just gives guidelines right now to the ballot title board And so we providing the groundworks for them to basically really address that issue because they don't have any kind of statutory requirements at the moment. And of course, there is TABOR requirements. There are statutory requirements in the Colorado State statute, but there are no guidelines right now for any accessible language.

And to that point, Representative Bradley, is we will be bringing L002 today. And I don't know if you'll have it yet. Yeah, some of you do, some of you don't. Everyone should have it. Okay, well, L002, we're actually outlining some of the evaluative tools that should be written into, that will be written into statute that help provide this guidance. So, for example, avoids using legal, technical, or specialized terminology when possible. clearly identifies a principle change in law or policy proposed by the proposed law or constitutional amendment, avoids unnecessary qualifiers, double negatives, and overly complex phrasing, and organizes clauses so that the effect of a yes or no or no against vote is readily understood and presents necessary information within the ballot title in a logical and readable order. A lot of these sections are these guidance points. one of our witnesses can talk to where they pulled these guidance points as in guidance for readability. And so these are essentially acceptable points of clarity for readability. Representative Bradley.

I think that's a really great suggestion, Representative Bradley. I think Representative Bradley's idea is really good. Thank you. Say that again louder for the people in the back. In this one instance, this one moment right now, the time is 521 p.m. on March whatever day. March 23rd. But I think – and I think that's something that possibly where this came from, came from community input from local organizations. So I think to avoid the cost to the state, it's a great suggestion that I hope our organizations are taking to heart to do that type of analysis afterwards. Does this work or does it not? What else can we fix? I think that's a great idea. But also, Rep. Bradley, this doesn't impact any proposed title board language that's before us right now, so it'll be a little early to run that survey. But Rep. Bradley.

Representative Espinoza.

Representative Garcia. Yes, thank you, Representative Espinoza. So if you all would like to take a bill journey walk with me to the last page, page 6. Nope, page 8, sorry. And you will see that we actually have an applicability clause here that addresses House Bill 1084 specifically. And so it gives certain conditions that if House Bill 1084 passes, for example, Section 1, if both bills pass, Section 1 will not go into effect, and only Section 2 will go into effect. And so if 1084 does not pass, then that is when the entirety of this bill will go into effect. Anything else, Rep. Spinoza?

Representative Garcia. Yes, thank you for the question. we are not that what this bill is doing is it's actually giving the flexibility where that section that you are talking about in 10 dd4 for the drafters to decide so it's comprehensible where to put it we are not requiring it to be in any any portion of the question so we are letting that flexibility exist however we are still it will still be required within the question

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious, could allowing your substantially similar language lead to inconsistencies or legal challenges regarding the ballot titles? Representative Garcia. Never mind. Representative Wynn. I mean, that is the question, Representative Ricks, is that is there an enforcement mechanism for a ballot title that is too condoluted or complex? And the answer is that truly depends on who wishes to put a ballot measure up. And the language that we have is mostly about simplifying it in the first place. So we hope that this kind of lowers those scores down.

I actually have a comment on that.

Is someone else going to be here to talk about that or that we can ask questions to?

We'll see. If that doesn't come back up, I'll allow the question at the end. All right, thank you. When you come back for wrap-up. Is there anybody else that has a question for these sponsors? Okay, seeing none, we'll enter the witness testimony phase. Since you mentioned Dr. Cortez, we will call up Mike Cortez, Christo Luna, Amy Spicer, and Molly Kirkham. Thank you. And we'll start with Dr. Cortez. You'll have three minutes. State your name, anyone that you represent, and we'll give you three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Little button on the bottom of your microphone, if you don't mind.

Is that better?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Next we'll go to Christo Luna. Again, state your name, anyone that you represent.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Next, Dr. Spicer. You'll have three minutes. State your name and anyone that you represent for the record.

Members, who has questions for this panel of witnesses? Oh, I'm sorry. I just completely skipped over my friend, Ms. Kirkham. You have three minutes. Please state your name and who you represent.

Thank you, Ms. Kirkham. And now members who ask questions for this panel of witnesses, we'll start with Representative Luck.

Who would like to answer? Dr. Cortez.

Follow-up, Brett Luck. Okay, thank you. Representative Bradley.

Yes.

Yes.

I was trying to fit within the term.

Okay. Here we go. Okay. So this is the existing ballot title for proposed initiative 95. It scores a range of a professional, which is post-college, to college graduate across reading tests. shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution requiring law enforcement to notify the Department of Homeland Security when a person is charged with either a violent crime or any crime if the person has a prior felony conviction, if law enforcement cannot determine that the person is lawfully present in the United States. The revised version, which scores at a high school level consistently across reading tests, shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that requires police to tell Homeland Security when they charge a person with a violent crime or with any crime if the person has a past felony, and police do not know if the person is legally in the United States.

Okay. Who else? Okay, seeing no further questions, thank you very much for your testimony. And next we will call up Jay Rucker, Alina Ascensio, Peggy Leach, and Aaron Meshke. Are there any other persons in the audience that wish to testify? Is that all you've got is the two online there? Okay, excellent. So we'll start then with Mr. Rucker. Please state anyone that you represent, and you'll have three minutes. And press a little button on the microphone at the bottom. There you go.

Thank you very much. And now we'll go to Ms. Meschke, and you certainly know the drill. Welcome back.

thank you miss meske and now we'll go to miss leach you'll have three minutes please state your name and anyone you represent for the record

thank you very much and I call Mrs Cynthia one more time um still not online okay and anyone else last call for witnesses Thank you very much Committee members who has questions for this panel of witnesses

Who would like to answer that? Ms. Meschke, Ms. Leach? Ms. Leach, I see you coming off mute. We'll start with you.

Yes.

And for the record, we're discussing a bill that's not before us, but I think the question is relevant. So, and then, so I'm assuming that you're thinking that with that language that it might

Ms. Meschke?

Thank you. Representative Luck? Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for you,

Yeah, that's a good question. So overall, I have had issues with my personally when I was voting in November and when I had voted in the 2020 floor election. I did notice consistently across all of the ballot measures, everything on my ballot, that consistently across the board, everything was quite difficult to read, even with the blue book. I do believe that overall, it would be much more effective if we just resorted to keeping everything on our ballots simple for the sake of everybody in Colorado. it would allow for it would be a blanket things need to remain simple so that way everybody can understand what exactly they're voting for which I think would be more effective than

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move amendment L-002 to the bill.

House Bill 1320.

Representative Ray Seconds, please explain your amendment.

Sponsors, I'm sorry. Members, are there questions about this amendment? Are there objections to the amendment? Seeing none, amendment L2 is adopted. Are there any further amendments? committee members do you have any amendments seeing none the amendment phase is closed

Thank you.

Yes, I would like to move House Bill 1320 as amended to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation.

Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sponsors, again, for bringing this bill. And again, just a comment to Ms. Meshke. in the sense that one of the things that 1084 does, and I think is important, is it does allow for the amendment to the income tax or increase in revenue requirements to also be clear because that was one of the things we did in 1084. So we are attempting to be consistent across our ballot initiative process. I do agree that as we draft things in the legislature for referral, it needs to be clear that we're trying to make sure we're being as clear as possible. But I will say my experience with our bill drafting is that it's a lot less complicated than the title board does in terms of their drafting. I just would note that as we look at our own bills, I think they tend to be a little simpler. And we try to do – it seems as if our own attempts at the legislature are to be clearer in our language than sometimes happens when they're going through the title board process with three iterations and all of the things that happen in that complex process which we discussed in 1084. So I just wanted to put that on the record that there is a balance in 1084 for income tax and for citizen-led initiatives that result in increases in state expenditures. And I also just wanted to say I thank you for doing the amendment because those were the questions that I had had about what did this bill do if we don't define what we're talking about in the general terms. And so L was very helpful for me in terms of getting to a place where I will be a yes vote today Thank you Are there any further comments from the committee Representative Luck

You just stole my thunder. I'm kidding. I do believe in this as well. I just have a couple of questions still that I think I put on the record. I think sometimes when, and no offense, because we have bills that are partisan and bills that are bipartisan, Sometimes when there's partisan bills, you don't take into account some of the things that are coming from our side of the caucus. Happy to discuss before seconds, but would like to – and I promise you that I would do that. There's been several olive branches, so I think I could get to a yes. I just – like do the initiators have a final say? Is it clear to the people that are bringing it forward and citizen versus the legislator-driven initiatives the complexity in that I'd like to see kind of finagled out? because I think people are like we say and we do, and then we get exempt from some of these things. So I could get to a yes. I just would like to have some conversations. So thank you for bringing it forward.

So if there's nothing else, Ms. King, if you will please poll the committee.

No.

No for today.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No with hope for yes tomorrow.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

You're on your way to the Committee of the Whole. Thank you very much. That also concludes the business of our committee for the day. Committee is adjourned. Thank you very much.