Senate Finance [Mar 24, 2026]

Senator Benavidez. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Excused. Present. Here. Here. Madam Chair. Here.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Allison Rothermel, and I serve as the Operations and Public Deposit Protection Act Director for the Division of Banking. The Division of Banking is responsible for the supervision and regulation of state-chartered commercial banks, state-chartered trust companies, and licensed money transmitters operating within the state. The Division also administers and enforces the Public Deposit Protection Act, which protects the public deposits held by both state and national banks. Today, I am pleased to appear before the committee with two individuals who are before you for confirmation to the Banking Board. In person is Mr. Scott Applegate, representing Bank of Estes Park, and virtually is Mr. Clay Roberts, representing Ant International. Both nominees bring valuable experience and perspective from the banking and money transmitter industries, and we appreciate the opportunity to present them for your consideration. Thank you for your time, and we are happy to proceed in whatever manner the Chair prefers.

Thank you. Perfect. Thank you so much for having me. Scott Applegate from Bank of Estes Park. I'm the President and CEO up there. I've been in that position for almost three years. Prior to that, I was the chief credit officer there. I'm a 30-year Colorado banker, banking officer. I've earned my stripes through First Bank and Guarantee Bank, helped start out Solera National Bank and then expand. There's a local investment firm out here, AMG National Trust Bank. I helped them expand into a bank before going to Bank of Estes Park. So I've been with banks kind of large and small, rural and urban. And my education is also in that, is in finance and economics and guest lectured at Metropolitan State University of Denver along those lines as well. I believe that the, you know, the Colorado economy rests on the backbone of Main Street, which is tied together by all of the little dirt roads that lead to all of the Main streets across Colorado but that the central nervous system of that main street is the community banks of Colorado And that requires that that banking system in Colorado is safe and sound and resilient and well-capitalized and liquid. And there were a whole lot of people that came before me that sat in this chair and wanted to be confirmed to make sure that that was the case and that the economy could keep working the way it was supposed to be working. And so, you know, once you get to about that 30-year mark, you start to think maybe it's your turn to serve and to give back. And so that's why I'm here. And at your grace, that's what I'll do. And, you know, as the great philosopher Forrest Gump would say, that's all I have to say about that, unless you have questions I can field.

First, I want to thank the committee. Appreciate you letting me do this remotely. My dealing with a little bit of spring break with my kids and my wife's didn't get her parents right now. So I'm able to pick up from school. So we're immensely grateful for that. So as well as my background, currently work with a US merchant services, part of Ant International, money service business here in the state of Colorado, as well as many other states. Prior to this, I spent 11 years with Western Union in their anti-money laundering counter-terrorist financing division, helping oversee that Bank Secrecy Act and AML obligations for Western Union. Before that, I actually worked for the federal government. I served as a senior enforcement officer with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, where in addition to having some interactions with MSBs, I also oversaw OCC and Fed regulated institutions. So a large detail of background in banking. Prior to that, I worked actually with a broker dealer helping stand up their anti-money laundering program. I think one of the places where you know, I'm a compliance officer by training and a compliance executive by occupation. And the place where I think that gets really exciting as we talk about protecting Colorado consumers and making sure our financial system is safe and secure. I think that's part of the reason I'm excited about this opportunity, because I think it's a place where I can bring that knowledge and some of the things I've helped supervise financial institutions through, help financial institutions manage through to the banking board, really to help ensure that Colorado consumers are protected, our system is safe, and frankly, it'll help grow the economy. Because when you have those two things, people trust the financial services. Once again, happy to take any questions. Thank you so much.

I think you guys answered all the questions, and I think we probably wouldn't be qualified to ask you all the hard questions that we could. So we're just going to go from there.

Aye. Aye. Yes.

And Vice Chair Marchman. I would recommend the consent calendar.

We have like one amendment. Let me pass these to Rachel. Sorry, sorry, sorry. You want one?

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. This is a bill that started in the House that has had a lot of support getting to us at this point. just of this bill is to two things. One is to allow people who served what we would call non-qualified time at the age of 21 and above. So think of someone who stayed at home and took care of their kids. Kids got to a certain age and they became a public service employee, either a teacher, a state worker, anybody covered by para. If they had a job, they could easily buy service because of that job. They would have wages. They would have things that they could put in there and prove that they were working. What this bill is allowing non-qualified service time where you don't have a job, but essentially if you're staying home taking care of kids, we do consider that a job, that you're eligible to purchase service once you have five years in para. with a maximum amount of 10 years. The other part of this bill is to make sure that all para-covered employers are offering a 457 deferred compensation plan and Roth options inside their 401k and 457. 457 plans were originally set up in the 1950s for firefighters and police officers. They have expanded to all state employees or government employees. And they give a different option. They're basically, the money's held in trust for employee, but it's just like a 401k, except that if you separate service, you do not have to wait until you're 59 and a half to take the money out on a tax-deferred basis. On a Roth basis you would still wait until 59 and a half if they offered a Roth so not to confuse you But 457s give that opportunity of flexibility of leaving at any age and accessing this money because technically it a deferred compensation system So that's why you do not have to wait till 59 and a half on a typical pre-tax contribution basis. There's also a plan that's considered a non-qualified plan. I know I'm getting real technical, but you can contribute to it along with a 401k and contribute the maximum in both. So this is why it should be an easy offering. PARA already offers it. I have one through the state as a state employee. So it offers it for state employees, and we want to make sure all PARA-covered employees or employers are offering it. They just have to offer it. It doesn't mean employees will actually opt in. This is a supplemental retirement plan above and beyond their pension. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to bill sponsor. It seems to me we got in a little hot water 20, I don't know how many years ago, when we had a very vigorous purchasing program for para-retirees. And I'm wondering, are you familiar with that? And is there anything in this bill that would seek to prevent that type of outcome?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your question, Senator Snyder. Yes, again, this in the bill says they have to, if they're going to buy service, has to be at their actuarial cost. And PERA has a table of everyone's actuarial cost based on age. So you get to the older you get, the cost goes up to a certain point, and then it goes down. It hits a peak, and I think it's right around $55-ish, something like that. But actuary costs for more people is, for most people, is in the 30% range. So they have to come up with that money to buy the service. And that's 30% of their highest average salary. So that's why we're waiting five years.

Thank you. And so from your explanation there, this should have no effect on our plan to get PARA hopefully funded in 2047.

But please, Senator Colton.

Any conversation with PERA will not impact that because it's actual costs. So I think, if I might add, that the credits they sold all those years ago, that led to us being in the terrible situation we are today. They sold a lot of credits very cheaply. But they already have this plan available, So we're just expanding it to an additional group of people who might have, like, been out of the workforce for a while, like personally I was when I was raising my kids. So that type of thing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I presume you've got a much deeper knowledge base than I do on para-related items. I know that within my company I offer a 401k plan to all my employees, and it's really laborious to put together. Do the entities that are going to become a part of this program, do they already have 401k plans in place or would they be required to put together new 401k plans?

No, this is government employees who are already participating in Paira's defined benefit plan. they already have the 401 open to them. This is adding the 457 and making sure that they are offering a Roth option for the 457 and 401k. So Roth option means that money goes in after tax, and it's just some programming on their HR, on their payroll system, to say it's an after tax instead of a pre-tax contribution. And the plan is under PARA's auspices, so the 457 is. They can offer their own 457 through a different provider if they want. Some do. But if they do, they have to offer it for, you know, use the paraplan too as a choice.

Senator Benavides. Thank you. Two short questions. One is, it's really not a question, but just to confirm that we talked offline, is that before anybody can purchase any service credit, they have to be vested. so they already have at least five years in.

Yes.

Thank you, and some confusion can be in here. You could see, because it's updating language that says for members before 1999, yeah. So a member who became, someone who became a member before January 1st of 1999, someone who became a member after January 1st of 1999 have different requirements. So someone who became a member before 1999, which is 27 years ago, only has at least one year of service credit. Anyone after 1999 has to have five years.

One more question, and that is we'd also talked about this, and I don't see it in here, is that the pair employees' employers that are going to be covered by the Roth and the 457 plans. There's no start date by when they have to offer that to their PERA employees.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did bring this up with PERA, and the start date is actually in the petition at the end of Section 10, because this will take effect during 1st, 2027. They said that's what suffices, and it's up to PERA then to inform the employers of that date because of the petition clause on this. We could add an amendment. I don't have one ready, but this is what Parra had told me and reiterated it's January 1st.

Senator Benavides. Just a follow-up, because I had not seen that. I hadn't looked carefully at the petition clause. Tell me why it's out there to January, because usually they're 90 days after they're signed. And so can you explain that?

Yes, that's to give them more time to implement. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for allowing me to testify remotely. I was not able to hustle over there in time. But my name is Michael Steffett, and I am the Director of Public and Government Affairs for Colorado PERA. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and speak to PERA position of support on House Bill 1026 We were very grateful to the bill sponsors for working with us on this bill that would modify two distinct issues under current law related to PARA which include purchasing of service credit, as well as PARA's 401k and 457b plans. For purchasing service credit, this bill would allow members the ability to purchase up to five years total of non-qualified service, regardless of whether the member was actively employed during this period or not. Other state retirement systems have similar provisions, and these are often referred to as airtime service credit purchases. There is no difference in the calculation of the cost to purchase, which is the actuarial cost of providing the future benefit resulting from the purchase. For PARA's 401k and 457b plans, PARA-affiliated employers are required under current law to offer the pre-tax version of 401k to all employees, but employers have to opt in to the Roth version and have to opt in to the 457B plan. While many employers do, not all of them do, and this portion of the bill requires all employers to offer both Paris 401k and 457B plans to their employees in both pre-tax and Roth versions. This update to require Roth participation will help the plans maintain compliance with federal law after changes that were part of Secure Act 2.0 that began requiring Roth for catch-up contributions, which affects some membership. The update also displays to employees the competitive advantages and benefits of Paris retirement plans versus others that might be available in the marketplace. It does not require that employees participate in either of these plans, and it allows employers to continue offering any other existing plans if they so choose. Again, I want to thank the the bill sponsors as well as the members of this committee for your time and consideration and would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you and I just wanted to clarify something, Mr. Stepit, you said that they can purchase no more than five years of non-covered time, so non-qualified time, correct?

Great.

Thank you.

Mr. Steppett.

Thank you, Senator Colker.

Thank you.

Mr. Seppert.

Okay.

Okay.

Mr. Steppett? Okay.

Thank you. Any further questions for our witness?

Sorry.

I believe our bill drafter is in the room. Is Ms. Martin in the room? Why don't you come forward? This is a pretty standard. They've changed the politician clause since you were in the legislature. Senator Benavidez, so maybe Ms. Martin can help walk you through that.

Senator DeBeneby, does that answer your question? Please follow up.

Ms. Martin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, that's correct. January 1, 2027, under either circumstance, is the date by which para and all para employers have to comply with everything in the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think my question is for Mr. Stepit, but Senator Kolker, perhaps you will want to chime in. But I guess I get concerned as we, when we create expansions to PARA, that we're creating future obligations that we may not be able to accommodate. we may not be able to fulfill. And can you comment on that at all or perhaps address that concern that I have?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Senator Frizzell, for the question. For the second component of the bill, they're requiring the para-employers to offer these certain plans. These are all supplemental savings options. So they're all defined contribution-esque type plans. There no impact to the defined benefit or the funding status of para As it relates to the purchasing of service credit what we really doing is just expanding Expanding might not even be the right word We're allowing folks to purchase five years of service credit for non-qualified time, which they're currently allowed to do under law. We're just removing the requirement that they have to prove employment for that time. And it was kind of alluded to earlier by Senator Croker in response to a question that all service credit purchases have to be made at the actuarial cost of providing those benefits. So it's not meant to be that there's any impact to the trust funds or Paris funding status through the expansion of any of these provisions under the bill.

We do have an amendment. Would you like to move your amendment and then tell us about it? Sure. I move L-003 to House Bill 1026.

Well, the real big part about this bill, the first four sections of it are basically grammar corrections from actuaries saying, well, let's use this word instead of a different word. The big part is part five, which when you put by service, part of your money goes into a health care trust fund that helps offset health care costs at PARA. There's two trust funds, though. If you're a DPS member, you have a separate health care trust fund, and that's F.5. That is referencing the DPS health care trust fund. So if you're a DPS member buying service credit, your portion will go into that one instead of the general health care trust fund. That's what that does.

Is there any objection to L-003?

No.

Senator Colker, close. Thank you. I move House Bill 1026 as amendment to the Committee on Appropriations. Just ask for an aye vote. This is, again, allowing more opportunities for people to save for retirement, a little bit more tax diverse, and those people that are able to purchase service makes it a little bit easier because they don't have to prove that they were a stay-at-home parent or didn't have a job where they were actually paying into a retirement plan. So I ask for an aye vote.

Senator Snyder.

Yes. Okay, thank you.

Senators, Benavides. Yes.

Yes, congratulations. You are unanimously on your way to appropriations.

Senator Pelton, thank you for your patience. We appreciate you joining us. We have... for two bills today, I believe. I believe we are going to deal with SB 26-044 first.

I actually really like this, Bill. I'm sad that you're PI-ing it. Any comments or questions, committee?

Your vote is your own. You may vote however you wish. Maybe I'll join you.

Thank you.

Yes. No. No. Aye. Pass. Aye. Aye. Yes. No.

I was kind of excited about it. I thought it was a good idea. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair. I just, being from local government, I see how much this costs local government. Everybody's in agreement that this is an excess cost and that we should be able to do something, but like I said, we've got to make everybody happy and moving forward we're going to do that. And I appreciate everybody working on this bill that has to ask for more time. So that's a good thing. Thank you for your work on this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 26-1200 is a straightforward common sense bill that honors Colorado's military families by removing unnecessary paperwork that burdens deployed service members. What does the bill do? It repeals the affidavit requirement for the $1 specific ownership tax and the registration fee exemption, allowing qualifying members serving outside the United States to use only their military orders or evidence acceptable to the Department of Revenue. update the late fee exemption to match removing the affidavit and clarifying proof of service outside the state. And it also applies to personal motor vehicles and qualifying interstrate commercial vehicles. So the Department of Revenue already verifies military orders for other benefits. THIS CHANGE SIMPLY ALIGNS THE PROCESS AND REDUCES ADMINISTRATIVE WORKLOAD FOR COUNTY MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICES AND SO WHAT DOES THE BILL NOT DO IT DOES NOT EXPAND simply aligns the process and reduces administrative workload for county motor vehicle offices And so what does the bill not do It does not expand eligibility It does not change the dollar amounts. It does not allow anyone to drive unregistered vehicles. There are still penalties for misuse. And it does not create any new state costs. The fiscal note concerns no meaningful impact or state or local government revenue or expenditures. expenditures. In fact, it streamlines DMV processes and may generate minor administrative savings. So this is a really good bill. I just asked for an aye vote, and it just removes the red tape without reducing accountability. And I just respectfully ask the Finance Committee to vote yes on this bill. Okay, thank you. Do we have any

Thank you. Thank you for bringing this, just to clarify and get rid of the affidavit. But it's talking about people that are serving outside of the United States. But on page 4, line 2, it says military orders to serve outside the state, not the United States. And I wonder, is that correct?

Oh, I got there. I'm looking at the introduced. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the re-engrossed. You need a re-engrossed? No, I got it right here. Department of Military Orders to Serve Outside the State or Any Evidence Acceptable to the Department. Okay. I'm pretty sure that this is just to make sure that if you're serving outside the state of Colorado, that you, like for myself, I was serving in Virginia. so to make sure that I was not, if I left my car at home, I was still not going to do that. So just to show my military orders, which they already have, that I would still get the same thing. We're happy to see if the bill drafter is available, if you like, Senator Benavides.

If you'd like, we could get the drafter up here. He's on his way in. We'll just hang on one moment.

Senator Bright, in the meantime.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Payne, for being here. We appreciate it.

Section 1 of the bill talks about the taxable class if they serve outside of country. Section 2, and it was already in a statute of their exception to, or their failure to pay penalty, is if they're serving outside the state. And going on to page four, it's all outside the state.

Mr. Payne.

So just to clarify your answer, that you're saying they have to be out of country to not pay the tax, but they only have to be out of state to not pay the penalty.

Thank you. Senator Snyder.

Mr. Payne.

I will draw the question.

Thank you very much.

Senator Purcell would like to know about Guam.

No.

Oh, you look like you had an amendment about Guam. Okay.

Yes, I just would like to say this is the first non-controversial bill that I've brought to finance. And so I just would like to say, good bill, vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Bill Sponsor, for bringing this. If you should find that we need an amendment on second reading to address state or United States or, say, Greenland or something like that, bring it on second reading. We'd love to hear it. Thank you.

But Vice Chair Marchman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say thank you. I'll move the bill, too. But I just want to say thank you for bringing this. This was something my parents, we were never stationed out of the country, but we would have tags in different places as we were moving around and growing up. So this is a really important bill, such a straightforward bill. Thank you for bringing it. And with that, I move House Bill 1026, sorry, House Bill 1200 to the Committee of the Whole.

Sure.

Senator Benavides. I know we were speaking in jest, but I think I was more confused even after the drafter's comments. So I'm going to be a no just so it doesn't go on the consent calendar. So you can try to see if that might be warranted since.

I understand, but I was just clarifying why I'm voting no. I'm going to vote no because I don't want it to go on the consent calendar. I don't want to pull it off.

Ms. Rudabish, will you please take the roll?

Congratulations. You are on to the cow with a favorable recommendation. Thank you, committee. Thank you for your patience with us today. Okay. Let us move on to our last bill of the day, which is Minority Leader Simpson and myself on mobile home property taxation. And I am passing off the gavel to Vice Chair Marchman.

It's a huge issue down. It looks like there's plenty to charge. So many people, they're barely there for two years. Sounds good. In fact, I bought a Subaru. I only had... You want to go first? Yeah.

Senator Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee members. And thank you to my co-prime, President Pro Tem Kip, for joining me on. If the last bill was, like, really simple and easy, this one is a little more nuanced and complicated. It's like, I've been working on this thing for more than two years. And, like, I'd start with, in my testimony, I want to describe, like, how this originated, like, why we're here today. And it's really the result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tyler v. Hennepin. So the AG's office offered a formal opinion in the middle of summer in July 2023 that started me down this path. And I'll just read the first page of his formal opinion. Question presented. Are Colorado laws governing the process to recover unpaid property taxes on real property and mobile homes unconstitutional, in part, or in full? following the recently decided U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tyler v. Hennepin, that was in Minnesota. And the short answer from the Attorney General, yes, in part, under Colorado law, in rare circumstances, a taxpayer may lose all rights to their real property or mobile home as a result of unpaid property tax and have no right to receive any compensation if the value of the property or mobile home exceeds the amount of the tax debt In those rare circumstances, following Tyler, Colorado's statutory process for both real property and mobile homes must be found to result in deprivations of property that constitute an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. So that's how, I mean, this set me on this path, and there was other legislation very focused on property and Colorado's, again, in some instances, it's unconstitutional process for tax lien sales. That was a lengthy conversation and a complicated bill in 24 that got through, and I started this conversation. I don't know how I ended up in this space, but I'm like, all right, if we're just avoiding mobile homes in this conversation, let's think about how to live up to our constitutional requirements when it comes to mobile homes. So in 24, I actually introduced a bill that was an oversimplification and really got people to pay a little more attention to what we were talking about and actually PI'd that bill, got a lay bill status to reintroduce another bill that created a task force and a work group. Because this truly is rather complicated. Routinely you have people that own the mobile home that sits on property that belongs to somebody else. And it was a year conversation with the AG office Like I hope my lifesaver Mr Reister is here because we were really dependent on the task force and the county clerks and advocacy groups and mobile home park owners trying to get to a spot where we could be comfortable in bringing legislation that again keeps us in line with constitutional rights and the Tyler v. Hennepin and protects mobile homeowners and property owners, and the bill is a result of that lengthy conversation over the better part of a year, task force engagement and conversations, and even today we'll offer a couple of amendments again to try to get us to the right spot. So really, that's the nexus of why we're here, and I'm trying to bring something for your consideration today in this space about delinquent taxes on mobile homes in particular. Thank you, Senator Simpson.

Very good. Committee, does anyone have any questions for the sponsors? Seeing none, we do have – oh, do I see one? No. I'm sorry.

Senator Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Benavidez. I can say the conversations haven't come to me or my co-prime, I think, in that space, but recognize absolutely willing to engage and clarify some of those minor points with floor amendments, and we're happy to do that. I think what you've referenced are not, they're not like something we would be opposed to. So we can work with you and the AG's office to make sure we get it right.

or is there some sort of partiality in the vote? Senator Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Bright, I don't exactly know for sure whether it was unanimous or not. Senator Kipp.

Great.

Wonderful.

It's great.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. My name is Holly Ryan. I'm a chief deputy public trustee in Douglas County. We would love to support this bill. Since Tyler v. Hennepin, we have not had clear statutory guidance for collecting on delinquent mobile homes. but right now the requirement of having English at least five other languages as well as a language that a mobile home owner or tenant may speak to have that high of a requirement for us to have to comply with within our county means that we need to oppose this bill just for that. I know we We have some amendments where we've been trying to do English or maybe English and Spanish, or we've suggested putting in some kind of a URL or something on the statements that would take them to a translator. they can translate to whatever language they would need but to have this high of a requirement on this bill for all of those notices not to mention how it increases the cost of postage we can't support the bill with that in there but we do need something to help us with mobile homes and i'm happy to answer any questions that this committee may have regarding the notice section Thank you very much.

If you can unmute, and you've got three minutes. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

And thank you, Ms. Altone. Panel, do we have any questions for, I'm sorry, committee, do we have any questions for this panel? Senator Snyder.

Ms. Ryan.

Snyder. Thank you for that answer. And then the next section down in the bill, sending notice by certified mail and by personal service to the mobile home owner at the mobile home. My understanding, most of the mobile home communities I visited have like a clubhouse or a central building and they have mailboxes there. They don't actually get mail delivered to their individual mobile homes. So I'm wondering if you find any problems with that requirement.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Snyder. No. Amazingly enough, I'm actually a full-time RBR, so we actually have our RB on a lot in a mobile home park. And the mailboxes that we have are similar to what you would have with an apartment complex where we go outside the clubhouse and all of the mailboxes are there based on what your unit number or your lot number is. And if you have certified mail, the postal service will go to that particular lot and give you something to sign for certified mail. So I don't see that as being a problem. And I do like the additional posting requirements because for somebody that wants to avoid certified mail, they will still get notice posted on the door of the mobile home so that they are noticed that they have delinquent taxes.

Ms. Ryan

Senator Snyder

panelists join us So we are going to give Hannah Abelo the floor If you could unmute you will have three minutes for your testimony Thank you and apologies for the technical issues Thank you

support this bill as amended. Thank you. And thank you, Ms. Abelow. Glad you were able to join us. Does anyone have any questions?

Ms. Caitlin Altone was the second one. Yes.

Ms. Altone?

Does anybody else want to venture to answer that question for Senator Benavidez? And seeing none, we can also ask other witnesses. Is that it? That's fine. Yeah, they did. Okay, very good. Well, thank you so much for joining us today, and we will go ahead and dismiss this panel, and we will bring up our final panel of witnesses. We have in person Jeffrey Reister, Jack Regenbogen, and then remotely we have Ms. Janine Reed and Todd Sims. And I will ask anybody else who would like to testify on this bill to please join us at the dais or raise your hand online. Okay. Why don't we start right here with Mr. Reganbogen.

And thank you so much. And we will go here to Mr. Reister.

Thank you and if you guys will stay put we will probably have some more questions for you. Let go up on the wall Ms Janine Reed if you could unmute and you got three minutes to introduce yourself and share your testimony Thank you Madam Chair and members of the House Finance Committee I sorry Senate Finance

And thank you, Ms. Reed. Now we will go to Mr. Todd Sims.

Very good. Appreciate you guys zooming in today. Does anybody on the committee have questions for the panel?

Mr. Sims.

Senator Benavidez. OK, thank you. And on page three it says it will be sent by certified mail to the owner and personal service at the mobile home. Is that your process?

Senator Benavidez. Yes. I had questions for either of these two. Maybe I should start with Jack because you brought up the redemption period. And in this bill, it talks about persons with disabilities. It doesn't describe that at all. What is a disability? It doesn't reference a definition anywhere. And if it's trying to align it to real property, in real property under Title 39, it talks about a legal disability. That's not also defined in Title 39 either. But I did ask and got some information from the Treasurer's Office, and they generally said that it is based on case law, so case by case, but it's generally individual who the court has determined is incapacitated or does not have a legal guardian. I suspect it also if people were out of country like military members or others but what would you consider a person with disability under this bill and then a person with legal disability under real property if we trying to align the two?

Reagan Bogan, I almost called you like a totally different name. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a mouthful. Thank you, Senator, for the question. So I'm looking at the re-engrossed, you know, top of page seven, and I do see a reference to a statute, the 39-3.7-101. And I looked at that definition, and you're right, it's kind of bare bones. It says someone who has a physical disability, but that's not defined, or then I believe it says an intellectual or developmental disability, and it cites to another reference in statute. So it doesn't define what physical disability would mean. I took for granted that this has been interpreted by now, I assume for a while, since this law, the 39-3.7-101, has been enforced and administered by tax collectors. but I would be open to a different definition if there was one that, particularly one that was more robust or one that the disability advocacy community preferred. I think from our perspective, our support is based on the nine-year redemption period. We think that's really fundamentally important, and so that's why we're in strong support of that element in this bill, but we would be very open to other definitions, other citations.

Mr. Reganbogen. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the question. We, to Mr. Reister's point before, we didn't really get into the discussion about what definition should be used. We did want to align the time period. So we did vote and formalize that as a recommendation that we align the nine-year redemption period. I could check the meeting minutes, but I don't recall much of any discussion about what standard of disability should be used. I think, to my knowledge, Mr. Reeser, that this reference to 39-3.7-101 I think was suggested by the bill drafter. I don't think that was ever discussed by the task force.

How do you think this should work? Mr. Reister. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Benavidez. So I think, and I'll kind of think out loud as we try to figure this one out. So the goal, and I think we agree, of general alignment across the board. So that way it doesn't matter if it's real property or mobile home, that one, there's consistency in application for the treasurers, but also consistency and understanding as someone who may at any point own either one of those properties, maybe even both at the same time. So certainly understand the goal there. And as my colleague said, I think we would be very open to whatever that ultimate alignment is between them. What I would want to make sure we can do ultimately is because of the title, I do worry about because the title focuses on the task force recommendations, I do worry about what we can do in the real property side. And so I think we might be handcuffed a little bit in terms of only being able to deal with the term either, you know, as disability as it is in the bill right now or potentially legal disability to further align with real property. I feel like that might be our only options in front of us. And like I said earlier, I do think it is important to have notice for our county treasurers, but also for those who are just not as familiar with case law to have a specific definition, even though there's a couple hops you have to make because of various references in order to find what that means. So, you know, I think ultimately if the drafter and potentially chair or, you know, assuming we are able to move on today from committee to the floor, potentially on the floor, if there's comfort to address both at the same time, I do think that would be the most appropriate action to further define what legal disability in the real property at the same time for mobile homes. Otherwise, I do think probably the best outcome in order to get to your goal and what I think is shared by certainly myself and our offices, probably using the term legal disability to continue to use existing case law obviously something that the county treasurers are familiar with but a little less notice a little less clarity in terms of what that actually means and less safe for the General Assembly in terms because they deferring to the courts at that point So I guess to make a very long answer, hopefully a little bit shorter, is I think we really have two options in front of us. We either change the current standard to legal disability to align with your property in 1120, or assuming the title will allow, we align both definitions in real property and in mobile home, manufacturer home and tiny homes to either be this definition or whatever, you know, this body finds to be the most appropriate definition when we're talking about disability. And I do agree with my colleague here that it's something that we should definitely talk to our disability community to make sure that whatever the answer is, is something that is appropriate given the needs of this redemption period and the purpose of that time frame for those who have a disability.

Then could I ask one final question to Mr. Sims? Just one second. Mr. Sims actually wanted to answer that question too, and this is the question,

My bad. So the question is, once it's decided, I kind of like going with real property, which is a legal disability. But if it was expanded beyond that to people with disabilities for real property and mobile homes, how would your office handle that?

Thank you, Vice Chair. Senator, and I think this is an interesting conversation because we don't have the ability to make a determination if somebody is disabled or not. They need to provide us with something that says that they have a disability because we are taking the property from an owner. And what would happen is the three years, if it went to another owner, and then six years later, the person comes back and says, wait, I was disabled. We have to take that property back from the other owner now. And so that is where it gets to be kind of tricky. And there has to be some definition. I think that everybody is in accordance here is in the same boat as is aligning it with real property. I think that does make sense. As far as the definition of disabilities, I don't think that that's something on us. And I'm sorry, I forget the gentleman's name that just mentioned that that should be done by the Disability Committee of some sort. But and I think that that's where that needs to be. I don't think that we need to be saying that this is the disability. If you're deaf, it qualifies. If you're blind, it qualifies. I don't think that that's where we need to be with in this statute completely needs to be into the real property with with that same type of. Whatever regulations as real.

Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I told you this wasn't going to be as simple as the last bill, but very well intentioned. I do have offer and move amendment L014 to House Bill 1120. This has to do with first right of refusal, and it's crafted in the re-engrossed bill right now. The underlying property owner certainly has first right of refusal in a delinquent process, but this limits who else might have first right of refusal, and what it says is that's not applicable to corporate interest unless the only other person that have a first right of refusal is the mobile home park if it's an association of mobile homeowners.

Thank you. I move L015. To the amendment. Thank you. L015 is addressing the language issue that was brought up previously. It did pass the House in a very expanded way, and this basically narrows it down to English and Spanish and allows people to be directed towards translation or interpretation services from the county.

Senator Kipp. Yeah, thank you everybody for hearing the bill today and thank you for engaging on it. You know, we're certainly open to making anything to improve it before we get to the final place. But, you know, really what we're trying to do is ensure constitutional compliance, reduce litigation risk, protect property rights, improve public trust, and make sure that we keep equity for lower-income homeowners. So I hope you will consider voting yes on this bill today. Thank you.

Madam Chair, thank you. Again, thanks to my co-sponsor and happy to continue to work in this space, recognizing there's some nuances that probably still need to be addressed. and the disability piece is a big part of that conversation. So commit to the committee. We'll work out, and by default, I agree with Senator Benavidez, but I don't know the nuances in this background, but trying to make the two sections between real property and mobile homes align seems like the correct approach, but that's getting myself way out over the front of my skis in that space, but it sounds like the right way to address this. So, again, happy to work on this before its second reading on the floor. So, hope you'll support the bill.

Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill sponsors for bringing this. I was in the House a couple of years ago when we started having these conversations and actually part of it was due to the Tyler v Hennepin real property conversation that we had and bill that we ran and passed back then and we'll be getting a just as a fast forward we're going to be seeing that again next week so as far as you know coming from the assessment world and being very familiar with this process. It is super complicated, and real property and mobile homes are very different, and how they are looked at is different, and how they are valued is a little different, but it's something that, you know, I hope that we can get it right, so we've had some really good conversation today, and I think that we need to, you know, keep the door open on that, but I'm definitely a yes, and I'm very grateful for you all bringing this.

Other closing comments?

Very good.

Very good.

No.

Aye. Aye. Yes. Aye. Aye. Yes. Aye. That passes 8 to 1. I knew it passed. I just didn't know how many people were on our committee. So, very good. That is off to the Committee of the Whole. Thank you, sponsors. And seeing no business in front of us, the Senate Finance Committee will adjourn. Thank you.