Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 115

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation of God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

representatives bacon barone bassenecker bottoms bradfield bradley brooks brown

caldwell camacho Carter Clifford DeGraff Duran English

Espinosa Foray

Flanelle Froelich Garcia Garcia Sander Gilchrist Goldstein Gonzalez Hamrick Hartsook

Jackson Johnson Joseph

Kelty Leader Lindsey Luck

Excuse.

Representative Marshall is excused.

Pascal.

Excuse. Rootnell. Rep. Rootnell.

Ryden. Sirota. Slaw. Smith. Soper.

No.

Excuse.

Rep. Valdez is excused.

He's here.

Here.

Representative Wilford.

Woodrow. Woog. Zokai. And Madam Speaker. With 55 present, 10 excused, we do have a quorum.

Good morning, Madam Speaker.

I move that the journal of Thursday, May 7, 2026 be approved and corrected by the chief clerk.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Appropriations Committee will meet in the Old State Library upon adjournment. We may hear any bills referred to appropriations at this time. See you there.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, this is a reminder that Monday...

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, this is a reminder that Monday is the last day of open enrollment. If you have any questions regarding benefits or open enrollment, please reach out to Shannon Briggs in accounting. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Health and Human Services Committee will meet upon adjournment to hear Senate Bill 162, Senate Bill 167, and House Bill 1432,

And any other bills assigned to the committee.

Good morning, members. I'd like to ask for your attention just for a few minutes. I'd like to take a moment to recognize the life of a loving and committed constituent from Trinidad. Jess Gibson was a faithful servant to his community, state, and country. He had a distinguished career in the military, first serving in the Navy as an underwater demolition team member before he was honorably discharged. Soon after, he joined the Army where he became a combat medic and a Special Forces soldier earning his Green Beret. He continued to serve after his military service, serving 26 years in the Colorado State Patrol, where he eventually was the rank of a captain. Jess was an avid outdoorsman who loved hunting and fishing, staying active throughout his retirement. He leaves behind a loving family and is survived by his wife of 36 years, Carol, five children, 16 grandchildren, and 21 great-grandchildren. I did this to honor Jess's life because, especially to his grandson, Mark John, who has also followed in his grandfather's footsteps, he's actually one of the state patrolmen that are here at the Capitol that protects us. He's part of the detail. And I know this is a little unorthodox to do this, but all that time serving his country and then the state of Colorado faithfully, I thought it was important that we recognized that he has recently passed away. To Mark John, it wasn't just his grandpa, he was a legend. And he was a legend in our home community as well. So I appreciate the attention that you've all given me during announcements this morning, and I thank you for standing for this. It means the world to me and his family. I mean, his wife, Carol, is here as well, as well as his granddaughter, and some of the members of the State Patrol were honored to be here. So I would ask you all, please, for all the years of service, if you'll give him a round of applause, and I appreciate you. Thank you. Once again, thank you all. I'm grateful for you all.

Yes. 116, and 155 as amended be referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and Senate Bill 114 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, we are going to be breaking now for committee. Please stay close by, and we will let you know when we will be returning to the chamber. Thank you.

Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Committee on Health and Human Services, after consideration of the merits of the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1432 is amended and Senate Bill 167 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favor of recommendation and Senate Bill 162 be postponed indefinitely. Committee on Judiciary, after consideration of the merits of the committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 115 as amended, 125 as amended, and 189 as amended. Be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with favorable recommendation. Conference Committee reports. First report of First Conference Committee on House Bill 1258. This report amends the re-revised bill. To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. Conference Committee report will be printed in the journal. Message from the Senate. Madam Speaker. Message from the Senate will be printed in the journal. Message from the reviser. We hear with the Transmant. Message from the reviser will be printed in the journal.

Thank you, Representative Brown. The House will stand in recess.

Thank you The House will come back to order Madam Majority Leader.

There it is. No, I don't have it. Darren? Darren? A call of the House has been requested. I need ten or more members to sustain the call. Please raise your hands. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Will the sergeants please lock the doors? Mr. Schiebel, please turn on the chimes. Members, push your buttons to indicate your presence. Mr. Schiebel. Mr. Schiebel.

Thank you.

Yeah. No, no, no, no. Thank you.

Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the call be raised.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to... Oh, I have to... I get ahead of myself.

Committee on Appropriations. After consideration of the merits, the committee recommends the following Senate Bills. 115 as amended, 116 and 189 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Committee on Transportation and Housing and Loan of Government after consideration of the Meritza Committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 152 be amended as followed and also amended be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable

Speaker. I move to proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. Okay.

resolutions. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the immediate consideration of House

Resolution 1028. House Joint Resolution 1028 by Representatives Hamrick and Goldstein, also Senator Kolker, concerning a commitment to pursue full and fair funding of public schools.

Okay, Mr. Schiebel please read our resolution at length

rapid advances in technology and career technical education and behavioral health challenges related to COVID, trauma, and social media. And whereas in 2023, the General Assembly took concrete steps to investigate and address the need for additional school funding resources in light of changes made by the passage of Senate Bill 23-287, which created a public school finance task force to recommend beneficial changes to the school finance formula and Commission 2 adequacy studies to assess the amount of additional resources and funding needed to ensure all Colorado students can reach the standards and requirements set by the state. and whereas the General Assembly passed a supplemental appropriation bill in 2024 dedicating $3 million to the adequacy studies to ensure they were conducted with the highest standards of rigor, research, and data analysis of which Colorado spent $2 million and whereas in 2024 the Public School Finance Task Force issued a report to the General Assembly with recommendations to adjust the school finance formula to improve the equity and adequacy of school funding some of which were incorporated in House Bill 24-1448 and suggested that the legislator annually revisit and update the base and need weights and that updates should reflect the results of the adequacy studies when they were published. And whereas in January 2025, the legislature received the reports and recommendations of the two commissioned studies, Equity and Adequacy of Colorado School Funding, a cost modeling approach by the American Institutes for Research, or AIR, and Colorado Input-Based Financial Adequacy Study Report by Ogden Blick, Palak, and Associates Incorporated, or APA. And whereas both studies found that Colorado teachers' salaries are too low and the tax system that supports schools is inequitable and inadequate. And whereas the AIRS study recommends that the Colorado legislature commit to set funding levels commensurate with Colorado's education goals, increase funding weights for at-risk students to base more research, to base more resources on students' needs, raise teacher pay, hire more students, reduce inequity in local taxes, and adjust salaries to account for regional differences in cost of living. And whereas the APA study recommends that the state provide a funding base of $12,346 per student, that small districts continue to receive extra funding, and that the state provide funding to equalize mill levy override funding across districts And whereas according to the APA study adequate funding would be billion higher than the current level and $3.1 billion higher than the school funding formula when fully implemented, created in House Bill 24-1448. And whereas where Colorado funding our schools fully and fairly, as defined by the adequacy studies, every student would have the individual attention they need from teachers, counselors, health professionals, tutors, and support staff to succeed and thrive. Every teacher would receive a reasonable workload, professional development and coaching, and a salary that would allow them to live where they work. And every community would enjoy the benefit of vibrant public schools and high-quality workforce and an engaging citizenry. And whereas Colorado's fiscal constraints, the depletion of state education fund, and the potential of federal funding cuts to education, Medicaid, school nutrition, human services, and other critical programs threaten the sustainability and adequacy of public school funding in Colorado. And whereas the General Assembly has both the opportunity and the responsibility to turn the adequacy study data into a structured multi-year plan, Colorado's blueprint for student success, to create a Colorado where every child has access to great teachers, individual attention, support services, appropriate technology, and a broad, high-quality education so they can thrive. and whereas failing to make progress towards implementing the adequacy study recommendations would waste the funds used to commission these high-quality studies and break trust with the students who rely on adults to solve difficult problems that fundamentally impact their lives. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the 75th General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the Senate concurring herein, that we, the members of the Colorado General Assembly, reaffirm the critical importance of public education and the fair and full funding thereof and declare that it is the intent of the Colorado House of Representatives to honor the $2 million investment in the adequacy studies made by the taxpayers of Colorado by taking concrete steps to gain an understanding of the findings and recommendations of the studies, choose which studies, methodology, and recommendations to follow, and develop a multi-year implementation plan, including revenue triggers, to phase in the recommendations. We're done. We're all good. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Joint Resolution 1028. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Members, we are voting. Please cast your votes. Bradley Garcia Hartsook Mabry Richardson. Bradley Garcia Mabry are excused. Thank you. Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the majority leader will be added to the special orders calendar today, May 8th at 2.25 p.m. Representative Ryden Members, you have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, Representative Ryden will take the chair. Thank you. Thank you.

House Bill 1424 by Representatives Wilford and Froelich, also Senators Cutter and Wallace, concerning measures to increase protections for persons engaged with transportation network companies.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's a delight to serve with you.

I move House Bill 1424 and the committee reports. All right. To the committee report, Representative Froelich. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In the Business and Labor Committee, we had a robust discussion, heard a lot of really excellent testimony from folks, and we ask for an aye vote on the Business and Labor Committee report.

Aye.

Representative Froelich. Members, thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we were called, Rep. Wilford and I were called into a June meeting with the Governor and informed he was vetoing last year's rideshare safety bill. So after a few beats and weeks, we began the process of crafting a bill that the rideshare giants would not go nuclear on and that the governor would sign. That is 1424. Rideshare companies have a safety problem, specifically a sex assault problem. This bill addresses key components that have allowed this to go unchecked. We need rideshare companies as part of our transportation network, but not at the expense of safety. We have amendments that reflect ongoing... Heads up, people of America. We have amendments that reflect ongoing additional conversations. We ask for an aye vote on these amendments and on 1424 as amended.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are going to run a series of amendments. I move Amendment L13 and ask for it to be properly displayed.

Thank you very much Madam Chair This is a new legislative declaration that was asked for in the Business Affairs Committee and we believe that it is relevant because it speaks directly to the large transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft that are the primary subject of this bill and we do ask for an aye vote Further discussion on the amendment All right seeing none the question before us is passage of L013 to House Bill 1424

To the bill, Representative Froelich. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L14 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you very much Madam Chair L14 clarifies the obligations of large scale TNCs on audio and video recording retention and storage until a formal rulemaking has been completed on or before June 1st, 2028 and we'd ask for an aye vote

Representative Froelich. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L15 and ask that it be properly displayed. Tag teaming. Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm.

Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. L15 carves out indecent exposure and public decency from the list of disqualifying offenses to become a driver. We do ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L19 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment ensures that the operator provides the results of a criminal history record check to the driver, and we ask for a yes vote.

To the bill, Representative Froehlich. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L20 to 1424 and ask that it be properly displayed.

All right. Further discussion on L20? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of L20 to House Bill 1424. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted.

Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Sorry, we're getting a little confused there with all of our amendments here. So this amendment clarifies the intent through rulemaking around audio and video opt-in for drivers and riders, and we do ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleagues. This is the last one. I move L22 to 1424 and ask that it be properly displayed. Representative Froelich.

To the bill, Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you all for your patience as we work to adopt amendments that were responsive to all of the stakeholders that we've been engaging in this bill and in this process. I will hold the majority of my comments for third reading because I recognize there's a lot of activity and conversations that are happening in the chamber, and we don't have everybody's attention, which I understand. And I guess the last thing I would just add is this bill wouldn't be necessary if Uber and Lyft had fully implemented critically necessary safety measures and protocols within their platform, as well as training their drivers who are, in fact, agents of their companies appropriately. So we do ask for an aye vote.

Give us just a minute. Certainly.

All right. All right.

The committee will stand at a brief recess to discuss whether the amendment fits under the title. Over here, please. Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. The question before us was whether this was a settled question on the amendment. the chair rules that it is. Therefore, we're back to the bill. If there are any further discussion on the bill, seeing none, the question before us is passage of House Bill 1424. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The bill passes as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please do the title of House Bill 1274. I'm sorry, Madam Majority Leader.

All right. House Bill 1274 has been moved until after Senate Bill 42. All right.

All right, Representative Stewart. Kay Stewart. Thank you Madam Chair I move House Bill 1432 and the HHS report All right so moves to the HHS report Representative Sop Merci Madam Chair

and then four amendments to the strike below. So what we changed the bill to is instead of ending the hospital transformation program, that program actually had been ended last night officially by the administration, our state administration. And then we ran a strike blow to bring in what's called HQIT Plus. So this is the hospital quality framework administered by the Chase Board, and that will be what moves forward so that we still have an incentive program for hospitals, but the administrative burden is no longer there. So instantly, within the last 24 hours, we have saved our hospitals real money and would ask for a yes vote.

Representative Johnson.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sponsors. Two things I wanted to point out just because the sponsors failed to mention was, one, these amendments were the bread to the meal and much needed. and second it was unanimous out of committee these were much needed changes and so we appreciate the fixes they made and this makes it an excellent bill

Representative Kay Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will certainly let my co-prime speak to a bulk of this, but this is a really great policy that he has spent months crafting with stakeholders, and this is truly a great bill for rural hospitals to incorporate. It expands and formalizes performance-based hospital payments. It gives the Chase Board more oversight over the program and adds a workplace violence metric to this, you know, quality incentive program or all the things that we're calling it. So such a tremendous effort on the part of my colleague from Delta County, and I ask for your yes vote. Representative Sopar.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sponsors, again. Usually I try not to over-talk on a good bill, but because it's at the end of session, we're all trying to figure out what's happening as the time moves faster. I applaud my colleagues for seeing this opening, for coming to the table with the new leadership of HICPUF, for understanding the issues of hospitals in both rural and urban. This is a very hard balance, and they have managed to do it. This is much needed, and the time is perfect as we make sure we are lining everything up, again, with a new administrator for HICPUF, with what's happening at the federal, and making sure that we are offering a good spot for all of our hospitals across the state. this is good health care policy and I'd be I'm excited to co-sponsor colleagues. If you have any questions, this is good policy and thank you sponsors.

title of Senate Bill 189. Senate Bill 189 by Senators Rodriguez and Coleman, also Representatives Duran and Bacon, concerning the use of automated decision-making technology in consequential decisions and in connection therewith making and appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 189 and the Judiciary Report.

In Judiciary, we ran one technical amendment for drafting cleanup, and I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Senate Bill 189 now comes to us as a continued part of our work to address, quote-unquote, AI. As many of us have experienced for perhaps the last two or three years, we have finally come to a place where we have a bill in front of us that a very well-stakeholded and task force-based group came up with to create a consumer protection framework for us here in the state of Colorado in regards to the use of what we now call ADMTs or algorithmic decision-making technology. As we know, living here in 2026 in the world, we now see the advent of what we would call AI or AI-driven tech or algorithms making very important decisions about many of our lives. These decisions that we believe are so important that there should be consumer protections around, we call them consequential decisions. And so what this bill does is it creates a framework to help consumers understand through transparency as well as to hold the users of this technology, and that includes developers and deployers, accountable to the extent that either the product... Sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And members, we did just want to get through this a little bit. A lot of people worked on it, and it is important that we are able to lay a record here in second reading. So ultimately, this bill creates a framework in which those who build the technology and those who use the technology have to disclose to consumers what the technology does and how it is used in making decisions that impact our everyday lives. And so after a couple of months with a stakeholder group that consisted of consumer protection groups, developers and users of technology called deployers, 18 or 19 people, we present to you Senate Bill 189. So ultimately, if this technology is used, again, members, to make a consequential decision in your lives, then you as a consumer should be notified to that effect. In the event that the technology harms you or creates an adverse decision, you have an opportunity to review that information and have someone, a person, human eyes, review that information. And then finally, if one is harmed as a matter of anti-discrimination, the responsibilities between the developer and the deployer are divvied out given the extent to which they cause the harm. And so, members, I'm sure if any of you have questions, we look forward to having this debate. But we do encourage an aye vote. The bill moved unanimously out of judiciary, and that is due to the conversations we have had not only across industries and the landscape, but across the aisle. I will also lastly say that while there are people who feel like we should have gone further on both sides of the conversation, what we are presenting to you today is the result of consensus, which we haven't seen since the passage of Senate Bill 205. So in order to just kind of move us along here, the last thing I'll say is we do want to recognize those who brought to us Senate Bill 205 and put Colorado in a space to be one of the first to say, if a person could be held responsible for harm, so should the technology. And so we have an opportunity to still be trailblazers while making these very important changes that will allow our landscape to operate more copacetically. And with that, we ask for an aye vote.

Senate Bill 171 by Senators Cutter and Wallace, also Representatives Lukens and Smith, concerning prohibiting the disposal of pre-production plastic materials at a location that does not have a certificate of designation to operate as a solid waste disposal site and facility.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 171.

Thank you Members today we are making a very small bill to correct a bill that we heard a while ago with the pre plastics or nurdles And CDPHE realized that there was an issue with the bill before it got signed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we are making a slight change which my co-prime will explain and I urge an aye vote.

Thank you Mr. Chair. In Senate Bill 171 we are removing a provision from Senate Bill 16 that we already passed that references the hazardous waste statutes and replacing it with a requirement to only dispose of pre-production plastic and solid waste landfills. That is the status quo and we need to maintain it. We ask for your yes vote.

Senate Bill 42 by Senators Weissman and Imoble, also Representatives Zokai and Sirota, concerning the classification of certain state revenue for the purposes of calculating state fiscal year spending pursuant to Section 20 of Article 10 of the State Constitution and in connection therewith, clarifying the statutory definitions of collections for another government and damage awards and making an appropriation.

To the report.

All right. I'm sorry, I'm a little confused because we had both the appropriations and the finance report. So you moved the... All right.

All right, so the question before us is passage of the appropriations commuter report. All those in favor or is there any further discussion on the report?

On the appropriations report? Okay.

Give us just a moment. Yes. All right. To the amendment, Representative Hartzook.

Further discussion on the amendment? Representative Sirota.

Further discussion, Representative Hartzok.

Further discussion on the amendment?

Further discussion on the amendment? All right, seeing now the question before us is passage of L-16 to Senate Bill 42. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The no's have it. That amendment fails. To the appropriations report. Any further discussion on the appropriations report? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of the appropriations committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The appropriations report is adopted. To the bill.

We are to the finance committee report. Pardon me. All right, to the finance committee report.

Further discussions on the Finance Committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of the Finance Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Finance Committee report is adopted. Now to the bell. Representative.

To the bell.

Representative Bottoms.

Can you make that a proper motion, please?

You need to move the bill.

Give us a minute.

All right, that is displayed to the amendment, Representative Bottoms.

Further discussion on this amendment, Representative Johnson.

I wanted to let everybody know what jet fuel is used for.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. I appreciate the clarification.

Please take it to this amendment.

Representative DeGraff, we are on Amendment L011.

Leaving on a jet plane, don't know when I'll be back again.

Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, Representative Richardson.

Representative Richardson.

Please do. Thank you. Representative Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Richardson.

Any further discussion on the amendment? All right, seeing none, the question before us is passage of L011 to Senate Bill 42. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The no's have it. That amendment fails. To the bill. Representative Johnson. Representative Johnson.

All right. Give us a moment to display that. Tell us about your amendment, Representative Johnson.

Representative Richardson.

Representative DeGraff.

Further discussion on the amendment?

Representative Zuckraff.

Representative DeGraph, we're talking about L013.

Representative DeGref, come back to this amendment that's been proposed.

Representative Johnson.

Representative Barron. Thank you, Madam Chair. 100% agree. I know we're changing Colorado revised

So I urge an aye vote. Okay, any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is adoption of L013 to Senate Bill 042. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The no's have it. This amendment fails. To the bill, Representative DeGraff. Thank you Madam Chair I move L012 to SB042 and ask that it be displayed All right Give us just a moment Thank you Madam Chair I move L012 to SB042 and ask that it be displayed All right Give us just a moment Continue, Representative DeGraff.

Representative Sirota.

Representative Richardson, I'm going to add to that flair.

Representative Sucla.

Please vote yes. Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of L-012 to Senate Bill 42. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The no's have it. The amendment fails. Back to the bill. Any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, Representative Hartzik.

Further discussion on the bill? Seeing now the question before us is passage of Senate Bill 042. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 042 as amended passes. Mr. Schievo, please read the title of House Bill 1274

Representative Garcia

And Finance.

All right. Reports are moved to the Appropriations report. Representative Garcia.

All right. Give us just a moment. Oh, wait. All right. Continue, Representative Garcia.

Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is adoption of L-003 to House Bill 1274. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. We are to the bill since this amendment struck the other committee reports. Representative Lindsay.

Ditto.

Further discussion on the bill? All right, seeing none, the question before us is passage of House Bill 1274. As amended, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1274, as amended, passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 135.

Representative Lukens. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 135 and the Appropriations Report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm actually going to start out our Appropriations Report with an amendment. I move Amendment L35 to the Appropriations Report and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. L35 continues the important work that was done during the House Appropriations Committee, along with providing a few minor technical and language cleanup changes. First, it clarifies in the legislative declaration the importance of early childhood education. Research very clearly demonstrates that high-quality early childhood education, including child care and preschool, are the best return on investment that the state can make. These programs produce significant long-term benefits, including improved K-12 school readiness, higher graduation rates and greater lifetime earnings and that every dollar invested in high quality childhood education yields substantial returns to the state and its communities Children who participate in high quality preschool and child care programs arrive in kindergarten better prepared to learn. The amendment that was run in the House Appropriations Committee made an important change in response to both stakeholder concerns that this measure was meant to increase funding to K-12, but not enough of the revenue is going towards K-12. So our amendment in Appropriations Committee changed the positive factor to be 2% growth or half the revenue available for the current Ref C cap, whichever was greater. L-35 further clarifies that the K-12 funding beyond the 2% positive factor can go towards additional school services, disability services to students with disabilities, and increasing annual contract hours. We further clarified in the amendment that the state is in good economic times and there is additional funding to be had above the positive factor. Those dollars can be used to support Colorado's children prioritizing child care, full-day preschool, and other programs that prepare children to be successful in school.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me start by thanking our bill sponsors and in particular thanking them for developing this and having it go to our voters. That has been a discussion all session long that when we are going to take from our taxpayer refunds that we do take this to a vote. And I appreciate them doing that. I wish we did it a bit more often. Secondly, I just want to say education has always been, if not my highest priority, one of my highest priorities since I entered the House four years ago. And so this substitute has two components to it. So one component is to max the number of dollars at $1 billion to put a cap on the refund side of things of $1 billion. And the second component is that the appropriations that would come from this billion dollars would be to K-12 public education, child care, and early childhood education. And you may ask why did I put child care in here in addition to early childhood education and K And the answer is simple there CCAP is in real trouble. And if you don't know that, let me repeat this. CCAP is in real trouble. Our federal component of CCAP has been frozen at $135 million for at least a decade while inflation continues to go up. Because of that and because of our inability, because we only have so many funds, counties in major areas of the state have either had to freeze enrollment or put wait lists in place. And child care, in my humble estimation, is a form of education and a critical form of education in early childhood. And while I agree with our sponsors on this bill, I come back to the fact that I do think we do need to put a cap on this of $1 billion in total. If we don't put a cap on this, the dollars could be upwards of $4.3 billion and more as we go forward. That just doesn't seem fair to our budget as a whole. So I ask for an aye vote on this substitute amendment. And again, I thank our sponsors, and I reinforce how important education should be to all of us. Further discussion on this amendment?

I want to start out by saying that I have tremendous respect for our good colleague from Grand Junction, and I have tremendous respect for what you are trying to do. It is similar to what we are trying to do in our L35. For example, we are expanding funding for K-12 public education, child care, and early childhood education. However, this amendment makes significant changes away to the ballot title title and caps the additional available funding to K-12 at $1 billion. We know that Colorado under funds every student by roughly $4,000 every year, and that amounts to a 3.5 to 4 billion annual budget shortfall for our schools. So this amendment would only fund a quarter of what is actually needed, let alone what is needed to better fund high quality early childhood education

might want to debate. Representative Taggart. Representative Luck. Sue the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we are comparing two amendment options, one with a cap and one without a cap, and I'm wondering if anyone has data related to the tax burden, the increased tax burden on a family of four in the event that this were to pass, if anybody knows on either front. So we actually have an understanding of what we are talking about in real dollars for affordability for our particular families.

Thank you, Madam Chair, colleagues and sponsors. I know you're trying to bring more money into education. I think we all want to see a better educational system for our students. I'm a parent. A lot of us are. Most of us are. We want to see things better for our kids. But at the end of the day, we're talking about increasing about 2% of the funding to K-12. that's about 150 million-ish per year so capping the increase at a billion dollars doesn't seem that unreasonable. If a billion dollars that we're only planning to spend about 150 million out of doesn't do the trick then I don't think 5 billion would either. So why don't we start small, see if it works and we can go forward or backwards depending on what the outcome is but this is at least a restraint, reasonable or otherwise.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I've been told by at least one member that that data that I asked for is not readily available, which is unfortunate because it's hard to have conversations when we don't know the actual impact in real dollars and real terms on the people that we represent To suggest that we could increase the amount that the state would be permitted to retain either up to a billion dollars or 4 billion dollars is no small change. And every one of those dollars equates to a set of hours that people have to work in order to provide for their families. if we increase the tax liability on our people, let's say even by $1,000 a year, our folks are going to have to find another $1,000 somewhere in order to maintain their standard of living, assuming inflation and other economic factors remain stagnant, which is not our reality. The gas pump proves that to be so. And it's concerning. It's concerning the idea that we would make such consequential decisions without really understanding what that impact could be on them. I will note what I have noted before on education and child care bills. there is a lot of evidence and an increasing amount that suggests that taking a child in their early life and placing them in the care of another person, not their primary caregiver, has drastic effects on them, on their brain, on their development, on their emotions, on their mental health, not only in the beginning of life but throughout life. And so when we're considering policies like this, we should look at upstream and downstream effects of our decisions. This room is often trying to solve mental health crises in our youth. And if this data is true, then providing opportunities and incentives for people to care for their children in those early years will save the state long term. because they won't have to pay for all of those other programs later on in life. And when we're talking about raising taxes in order to then equivalently provide these other services, all while burdening families so that they can't actually be at home, they can't actually provide that care, seems to me puts us on a downward spiral and creates even more problems in the long run. Not just on the Tabor front, not just on the tax front, but in the family front, in the health of the next generation. I don't care for this bill at all, but I do think that we should limit its impact because all we're going to do is translate the burden that the state feels and its quote-unquote lack of funding onto families who will then have to either cut back on things that are important to them or find other jobs in order to supplement so that they can actually afford to leave here, live here, as opposed to, like I mentioned on the other bill, leave on a jet plane.

All right. Thanks, Madam Chair. Just wanted to review There a sheaf of fiscal notes associated with this bill March 10th state expenditures up to billion March 16th, state expenditures, oh, that came down to $817 million. March 25th, oh, back up to $1.1 billion. April 20th 969.7 million and we seem to have stabilized April 28th the number stayed the same 969.7 million and finally March May 5th just a few days ago third time in a row we hit that number of 969.7 million million dollars in spending in the out years. The first budget year floats around quite a bit, 136 million, but we've got some consistency for nearly three or four weeks at least of 969.7 million dollars. So if that's what we're going to spend, why would we want to collect four or five times that. I think incredibly reasonable to go to the people and say, hey, we envision spending nearly a billion dollars. We'd like to collect a billion dollars, not four times more to be spent on unspecified things. This is at least honest and consistent with our fiscal notes. Please vote yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sponsors. And I do appreciate the fact that we had, in fact, a resolution this morning that indicated a shortfall of $3 billion. It's one set of numbers. I have not had the opportunity to study it. And again, I want the sponsors and everybody here I support for education. I don't know where I'd be today in life and where my kids would be without the education we were able to afford. But I hope you also take into account this needs to pass the entire state. It needs to pass our 45% over here. and I certainly would be open to a different level of a cap, but I do believe that if our voting audience, our voting citizens, I should say, hear that this bill takes everything above the C cap, albeit it already has the 2% positive factor and also has the homestead, I worry it won't pass. And I can't challenge your polling, but I worry that it won't pass. And when I think we're 43rd in the nation in terms of K-12 funding, I want to help you get to a significant level, and that's why I raise this. not because I'm against further funding of education. That couldn't be farther from the truth. So I appreciate your thoughts.

2023 proposition hh was defeated 59 41 and then additionally recently voters approved reducing the income tax rate from 4.63 to 4.55 so as we talk about the litmus test with taber and and diving into those tax dollars we've just seen a a list of what i would consider some stakeholdering if that makes sense and my good colleague from grand junction you know when he talks about the 45 This is widely popular in areas like ours, so I just think it's important to put that on the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L25 as a substitute amendment to L35 on SB26135 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So amendment L25 simply puts a reasonable $500 million per year cap on the new K-12 carve-out from Tabor. So instead of letting this carve-out automatically grow with the entire state education budget forever, the amendment keeps it at a fixed, predictable size. This ensures the ballot measures stay focused on schools, not on quietly letting state government take a permanently larger share of Colorado's economy, and I ask for an aye vote.

Representative Lukens. Thank you, Madam Chair. We respectfully ask for a no vote on L25.

Just trying to keep the discussion alive, Madam Chair. So I move L026 to 135 and ask that it be displayed properly. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, lots of words on page. if you want to go through the bill and take some time to line it up and see what it does feel free but let me explain it to you i think this is something we can all agree on this simply ends the removes the removal of the cap if you want to call it that this just makes us expire in 10 years this is the time frame that the bill says that the two percent additional would be devoted to our K-12 schooling. If we're going to stop providing money after 10 years to that extra 2%, then we should stop collecting the additional monies at that point. It's 10 years from now. We can't predict the future. Long before that 10-year expiration, if we found that there's other uses for this money that are truly beneficial, we can simply ask again That the beauty of the taxpayer bill of rights We can just ask and they can say yes after we demonstrated that we actually used their money wisely So I would say let go ahead and take this amendment because it doesn disturb anything that this bill does for at least a decade and then we can let a whole new group of people decide what they want to do in service of this state. So I would urge a yes vote.

Thank you to the sponsor for that explanation. And I don't disagree, but estimates become so much easier to make the closer you get to real time. If we expect to get there by year 10, I would think by year 8 or 9, we should be able to go back to the voters and say, yeah, this is working. We've demonstrated eight years of progress. We're closing in on the finish line. This is working. Let's continue this. But I think right now it's a little premature to just leave it open forever. So vote yes on this.

Merci, Madam Chair. And it's an honor serving with you. I wish I could say ditto in French. but I don't know how to do that. It's close enough. I've appreciated the debate about making sure that we're transparent with the funds going to public education. However, some of the comments that were made, I can see some valid points with that some of the amendments have been a little bit longer and more complex. So let's take it back down to the simple side of the argument. And that's why I move Amendment L027 and ask that it be properly displayed.

As a substitute. To Amendment 35.

Merci. Members, this amendment does exactly what the people of Colorado have been talking about and what has kind of upset them with other ballot measures, to tell you the truth. We heard it with the marijuana measure that people were told that all the money from marijuana tax dollars were going to go to K-12 schools. And now they've found that even with the best program, it's only just a sliver of that tax revenue ever makes its way to K-12 education. And yet that was the center of the campaign. This would require 100% go to our public schools. We just had a joint resolution this morning in which we talked about public school funding and the need for putting more funds there. This would actually make us a leader in the United States for actually putting money where our rhetoric is and saying that our kids are going to be first. we're not going to use this as a vehicle to only take up to 50% in the cap expansion to give to K-12 and have a title where it says everything is for K-12 and the rest is just dumped into general funds. This says we're going to take all of that and put it into a K-12 education. And I would ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, we're still taking a second to process this amendment. March 13, strike 23 and 25. Okay. Any other purpose? Okay.

Representative Sober Thank you Madam Chair And I appreciate those comments from my good colleague from here in Denver Kind of, I guess, pulling out my inner Chris Hansen, the one thing that I would say is don't forget that if you raise the cap and channel all the funds to K-12 education, that actually frees up other funds within the general fund. And so you're actually now creating a vehicle where there's more movement that can go on within the general fund now that you've actually freed up more dollars for K-12 education. So instead of what we normally would do with having a very big school finance act, you could start to move more of those monies around. So I just want us to be really transparent with the ballot language because anyone going and voting for this, they're only thinking about kids and our K-12 kids. What's been freed up, assuming this passes, if all of this goes into a K-12 education, that would mean there's a lot more money in the general fund that's now freed up for the support services, the wraparound services, child care, playgrounds, whatever would bolster helping kids. that now all of a sudden would be new revenue that you could play with.

and I am in support of this amendment the reason being is we're saying that we're going to strip away, we're going to suck out of the pockets of the people's pockets of the hard-earned money that they make every single day to pay for K-12 education K-12 education, that makes it sound like it's for the children but then we just heard that it's going to many other things other than just the children and that's the heartstrings that they keep pulling so now we want to add in early childhood development and all these other things associated with that it just seems like it keeps growing and growing and growing if we're serious about saying that we are going to tell the people of colorado this is what the money is for, this is where the money is going to go, I would like to see a mandate, a 100% guarantee that this money will go for the kids. That's what I would like to say. That's what I would like to see. This amendment helps with that. I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that explanation. But what I didn't hear, and that I'm hoping that will be present in the blue book for people to understand, is not just what you're going to do with the money, but that by voting yes on this, that means they will be forfeiting their TABOR refunds. refunds that they require to pay for their homeowner's insurance or even their car insurance that year or buy their children lunches or sports or whatever it is that they need to do for their kids, but they will be foregoing their TABOR refunds, which so many people in Colorado depend on year after year, and it keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller. They can't give up anymore. So will that be reflected in the blue book that they'll be letting go of their TABR refunds to be able to do this.

Animal Bacon. Okay. So I'd like us to read the language. Do you have the underlying amendment? Do you also have L35? Okay. Because we're running all these substitutes, so maybe we should know it's an amendment. Okay. So in the bill, so first let's just talk about how this functions per the language in the bill. We are asking voters to help us raise our revenue caps and what we can retain. The amount that we're asking voters, and this is germane in regards to how we talk about education in the ballot question and what it is that we're doing to help answer your question. It is not necessarily pinned down to one precise sentence. So we are asking the voters to retain revenues up to the value of how much K-12 costs us. Our program, state share of our program plus our categoricals. That's in the bill. we realized that that cap just because we set that cap we may not always bring in that much money and so then we said let's have phases of how we're going to prioritize the money we do bring in the first phase is creating the positive factor which is two percent of total program or the greater of right half of what's in the pot that is a positive factor then the amendment and what it says is that the difference between the positive factor and half of what's there, if it's, you know, also goes into the following. Okay, so on the amendment on page two, education to be used for school services, disability services to students with disabilities, increasing annual contact hours, and then it says may and shall appropriate or transfer the remaining money in the account, and the account is how much we have retained, right, to programs that support Colorado's children, prioritizing child care, full-day preschool, and other programs that prepare children to be successful in schools. And this is the information that will also go into the blue books. And so what we're asking people for is to retain primarily the amount of money that we spend on K-12, you know, that cap, not to retain it, I'm sorry, to set a cap by the amount of money that we spend so that we can retain the dollars to invest in kids. And so the way that we see that working is sometimes there will be fluctuating amounts of dollars. And we want to be sure that even though what we're deciding to do as a matter of policy is even though we're deciding to invest in K-12 and get us there staggered over time, we also realize that there might be additional revenues that we want to just let people know we are not going to do whatever we want with it. We want to spend it on kids. And so where we're at now as a matter of policy is not being bound, which is originally back to your amendment. And so that is our intention as a matter of policy. And that also is our intention in the spaces where we reference K-12 funding and what it means as a matter of the new cap and the matter of how we have the potential to spend the dollars that we retain. So it is not necessarily limited specifically to K For what it worth we tried to speed up the school finance formula and it had our number we tried to fully fund and it threw things out of whack so much so that some school districts would only get like $300. And so that is also our concern with this because the way that math actually works is not as helpful as we think it is. And so we do want people to know the term that we are using is what we want to set the cap by and the priority of the funds retained will be for schools and then for kids and then if we are in the space where we have additional dollars how can we supplement our budget which I'm sure we can all understand there might be some things that we could better fund. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I absolutely appreciate the sponsor's more detailed description of the underlying amendment. This was a substitute amendment to. And actually, frankly, it just brings more concerns to light because now we've got a question about K-12 funding and then a separate blue book that some people read, some people don't. I would think the Blue Book would be more explaining how the question itself is enacted, not be expanding upon what's in the question. I think it further invalidates what the question is if we're intending at the end to also spend on helping out the – I mean, if at the end of that long trail was other money to help out the state budget. That is nowhere near what this question that's going before the voters says. So not only does bringing this amendment avoid 35 just giving us a settled question, it provides accuracy to how we would enact the use of this ballot measure were it to pass. Frankly, it's very disturbing to say that there's other information now in an amendment that won't be in the question that greatly expands what the money in this question would go to. So I think this is a good amendment. It keeps things very clear. I would vote yes. I urge the rest to as well.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-27? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment L-27. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. No. L-27 is lost. Back to L-35. Is there any further discussion on L35? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment L35. All those in favor say aye. All opposed, nay. L35 is passed. Back to the bill. Back to the appropriations report. Is there any further discussion on the appropriations report? Seeing none the question before us is the passage of the appropriations report All those in favor say Aye All those opposed nay The appropriations report is passed Back to the bill Representative Lukens.

Emma Bacon. Thank you to my co-prime, and thank you, members. You know, I feel like for the last couple of hours I've seen amendments to refer to the voter. So I love that we actually have a bill that is doing that. And, you know, our voters understand. and I read to you the question, and I read to you from our polling data. I want to thank my colleague who just shared about her experience of being an educator. I think many of us know educators. The one thing about all of us is regardless of where we land on a political spectrum, we are probably all little ones going to school at some point in time. And so everyone has their favorite memories of being in school. The truth of the matter is, here in Colorado, we are at a crossroads. We need to ask ourselves, and at the end of the day, what we are voting on here is the ability to ask ourselves, are we willing to invest in our kids? Are we willing to invest in things that help our kids get to where they need to be? And so I think I heard perhaps some colleagues say, you know, I don't have kids. Why should I invest? Well, I don't either. But when I think about the dollars that I might have been able to retain, because we asked people too. We asked teachers. We asked our school districts to ask people. if Coloradans were willing to not pay more in taxes but perhaps have their refunds retained in exchange for healthy schools the overwhelming majority of people said yes I joke that I might be a big bad liberal from Denver but many of us spend time visiting schools across the state. For my low, low cost of $20, I know I would see another teacher in a county that you represent. Every kid in this state has the potential to literally save my life. They can become the doctor. They can become the firefighter. They can become the teacher. And so ultimately what this bill is doing is letting us ask the voters, which we seem to keep asking for, whether it's a referendum or petition clause. And so it is up to our constituents to make that decision. But at this point, we are confident because so many constituents have touch points with their schools and with their teachers. Our teachers shouldn't have three jobs just to be able to teach math. Our teachers should be able to partner with airlines, with hospitals, all the wonderful things that the state of Colorado offers. and we can't even do that well because some people refer to our state, and I hate to even say this, so please don't be mad, but what's the difference between us and some states that have half of our budget and they're still paying teachers better than us? And those states are doing that, and quite frankly, when they ask those questions, they ask to increase taxes to pay teachers, and you know they do it, and that's not what we're doing here. They do it because the biggest return on any investment that we can make are our kids. They are our children and our students. And they deserve to have the resources that the state of Colorado can actually provide. I don't want to get into the semantics and some arguments about our budget and deficits. because even in the years when we didn't have these challenges, we are still woefully underfunded in K-12. We passed an amendment to fully fund K-12, and then we have a workaround that says, in order to balance the budget, we can take money from K-12 to do it. And that's been going on for the last 30 years. Well, not including the last two. Thank you, sir, for paying down the BS factor. But that, am I wrong? That's getting harder and harder to do. And so the last time I was in a classroom, I used chalk. I'm not that old. And I used to wash my pants and have little pieces of chalk in my pockets. But guess what we use in schools now? We use Chromebooks and computers. And there is no adjustment for inflation from chalk to computers. things cost differently and they cost more we need nurses we need counselors we need 21st century education and our budget constrains us so much so that we feel like this is the time Colorado that we can ask ourselves is this investment we want to make to catch ourselves up again to not only what our students deserve but what our teachers deserve what our principals deserve and what our whole communities deserve. For those of you who have had a opportunity to visit your schools. I do want to shout out a particular school I got to visit. They didn't ask for this. I want to thank the AML. The reason why we chuckle with each other is because I was invited to Kim, Colorado, where there are 23 students. The difference of what $5,000, $10,000 makes for a school of that size can change lives. And I am willing, all the way up here in Denver to be sure that they get it. We talk about urban-rural divide all the time, and you know where you see it the most. You know where you see that divide mitigated the most. It is investment in K-12. People along the front range are happy to invest in the plains and on the western slope. And so just like we have said thousands and thousands of times in here, this bill is about putting something on the ballot so we can choose to invest in our children. And so with that, members, we look forward to the continued debate. And we hope that you vote yes. Representative Johnson.

Trickle-down, that's a whole different... Okay, sorry. So the state doesn't directly pay educators. That's never been the case. So we pay, even if it's a state-run school, we pay the unit or the local education provider. And just like we do with other things, when we say what the intent is for, sure. We also adjusted our school finance formula, and that is how we deliver dollars. And what we know to be true from school districts who support this, as well as educators, is the school finance formula is used to actually operate the districts, which the number one expense is employees and labor. And so if districts get more money through this formula, that will free them up to be able to pay more for their educators. And the more that they are able to pay, particularly at living wages, we do know that statistically the data shows, and directly hearing from our superintendents, and I encourage you to talk to your school districts, the first thing that they are going to do is hire more staff to be able to support kids. They'll probably hire special education staff first, if I'm honest. And so as a matter of function, the state does not directly pay employees, but the money will go to the local education providers, who we know their first obligation is to their staff. I hope that better answers the question. Thank you for it. Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. And like the bill sponsors had mentioned you always spend quite a bit of time on the amendment piece so it is nice to be able to speak to the bill Y are hanging in there Thank you. I appreciate your patience. Just a quick reset just a little bit. Talking about a bill that if approved by voters, we're talking about raising the Tabor cap. So if we raise the Tabor cap, what we're doing is we're saying that there's going to be a certain amount of money that we're not going to be able to count towards what would go towards, potentially, if we keep our fingers out of the kitty, refunds. Refunds that come back to the taxpayers of Colorado through the taxpayer bill of rights, Tabor. What we're looking at doing with this bill is increasing that cap by roughly $4.6 billion. $4.6 billion. That's a lot. That's a lot of dollars. I know that during the amendment phase we discussed this, but I just want to recap just quickly what we have continued to hear from the taxpayers. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights has been defended by the taxpayers, by the voters, time and time and time again. In 2008, Amendment 59, which would have ended Tabor refunds for education funding, not entirely dissimilar to what we're discussing here as far as are people willing to trade their taxpayer bill of rights refunds for education. That measure was defeated 55% to 45% at the ballot. Taxpayer Bill of Rights was upheld, was defended. In 2019, Proposition C, to retain revenue for transportation and education, you see a theme here, that was defeated 53.7% by 46.3%. Very similar margins. 2023 Proposition HH taken to the voters. Property tax and state revenue change was defeated 59 to 41, and then voters approved reducing the income tax rate from 4.55 in 2020 with Proposition 116. Now, the reason why I want to make sure that I go through those numbers is that it shows by very similar margins each time that we've taken a measure to the voters to say, would you like to forego your future taxpayer bill of rights refunds in the name of fill-in-the-blank? Most often we fill-in-the-blank here with education. Okay, Red Brooks, can you bring it back to the bill? This bill looks to raise the cap by $4.6 billion. Keep in mind that the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is widely regarded as the strongest state-level fiscal constraint mechanism in the country, the gold standard. The gold standard. we were we heard that when we ask voters we think that they would approve foregoing these things for education for school funding even though history hasn proven out that way the other thing we have to keep in mind is how often we have taken little bits and pieces from the Taxpayer Bill of Rights from Taxpayer Bill of Rights revenue increasing the cap So we also need to make sure that we're asking and very clearly defining the question that we're asking. 10 seconds worth of latitude here chair that we were talking at this well about clearly defined ballot language very recently i'm not going to go into what it was and what it was for but the discussion was actually oh my from this side of the aisle there is a ballot question that is being slightly muddled. I think that's actually very generous. What I'm worried about here is that this question is muddled slightly. Again, very generous. So we're a little bit kind of talking out both sides of our mouth, are we not? We're saying, oh gosh, we can't fix our roads because the question's not being asked clearly. I'm saying, you know, if you want to ask the taxpayers of Colorado to give their money for education, then clearly ask the question. I don't believe that that's happening. Madam Chair, I move L024 to Senate Bill 135 as to be displayed. It is properly displayed to the amendment. Chair, thank you. I'll speak right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand. In plain terms, this amendment makes the ballot tell voters very clearly what they're being asked to trade. A permanent, multi-billion dollar taxpayer bill of rights carve-out for a temporary school funding boost. If that's a decision that the taxpayers wish to make, great. That's on them. But let's be very clear. Let's articulate very clearly what it is that we are asking that voters to approve. This amendment would change the ballot language. Right now, the ballot title reads, shall state investment in K-12 public education increase 2% each year for the next 10 years with investments used to increase teacher pay, improve teacher retention, lower class sizes and increase access to career and technical courses without raising taxes but instead funded by raising the annual limit on state fiscal year spending. Only yada yada. What we're saying is the language should read as follows. to make sure we are clearly articulating to the voters what the question is that we are asking. Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes allowing the state to keep and spend an amount of state revenue equal to one year of state public K-12 education funding as a voter-approved revenue change under the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and in connection therewith requiring the state to use a portion of the money to increase state funding for a public K-12 education for 10 years, allowing the state to use the rest of the money let be clear for any purpose kind of the fill purpose determined by the state legislature that I think is a fair question I would think that it should strike a certain amount of concern, if not fear, in the minds of the voters, because I'm not exactly sure that we have a gold standard track record of being able to make those decisions. So we want to make sure that the taxpayers understand that we have the legislative authority to then decide what we're using with the rest of that money. Danger, Will Rogers. I believe that it is fair to ensure that the ballot language is written in a very clear manner so everybody understands what it is we're asking. I know that I have some colleagues who would like to speak to this amendment as well because it's a great amendment, and they can't wait to talk about how great it is, honestly, and how much sense it makes. I'm going to ask her an aye vote, and I'll yield some time to my colleagues to be able to speak to it.

Representative Luck.

It's properly displayed to L034.

Representative DeGraff.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, it's an inception day. All right. Representative Lukens or Luck. Okay. Then you go first. Representative Bradley. It's getting late. People are tired. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Representative Lukens.

Rep. Richardson.

Representative Luck

Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L34. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. L34 fails. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L24? Representative Brooks.

Representative Richardson.

It is properly displayed. Thank you.

AML winner.

Representative Lukens?

Representative McKilty.

The other half is leaving it up to the legislators. Holy cow. Have you seen what the legislators have done to the budget of Colorado? They can't even handle that. And you're going to hand them billions of more of your hard-earned dollars to do with whatever you want, whatever they want. Not what you want, what they want. I can guarantee you that money is not safe in the hands of these legislators. There's no way. If you haven't seen that year after year after year, budget wall after budget wall after budget wall, then I don't know how much more clear to make it. The less money that they have to play with, the better. And to be honest in this ballot measure, we need information like this so the people know exactly what's happening because otherwise your money will be wasted. Representative Bradley.

Representative Luck.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment 31? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment 31. Division's been called. We'll go into a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. Representative Lukens.

The question before us is the adoption of L31. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber are not entitled to vote. Please sit and remain seated. Representative Richardson. Thank you. Representative Richardson.

AML Bacon. AML Bacon.

Representative Richardson.

The question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-31. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber are not entitled to vote. Please sit and remain seated. All those in favor of Amendment 31, please stand and remain standing in one place or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. That was weird. I mean, have you been this place lately? I'm so tired. I'm so tired. You got a right hand. You got a right hand. Y'all don't know that. You got a right hand. You speak the same language. You may be seated. You may be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place, or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you Amendment 31 is lost Back to Amendment 24. Is there any further discussion on Amendment 24? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment 24. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. Amendment 24 is lost. Representative Goldstein. To the bill.

Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 26-135? Representative Kilty.

Amel Bacon. Amel Bacon. I was like, are we, do you say potato?

Representative Kilty.

and that's what it should say in the blue book. Is there any further discussion on L36? Seeing none, the question before us is the Passive Amendment L36. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. L36 fails to the bill. Any further discussion on Senate Bill 26-135, Rep. Radley?

Excuse me, Rep. Bradley, I would like to redirect you back toward the bill. The bill is talking about teacher pay, and the sponsors talked about teacher pay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise today to speak about more than just numbers on the balance sheet.

Representative Luck.

Is there any further discussion on the bill?

The inability to make hard, right decisions. To make cuts. And who pays for it? We do. The hard-working people of Colorado do. The issue of this bill is not just about education funding. It should also be about trust. And frankly, the people have every reason to distrust this process and many of those under this. Because too often in this legislature, money enters under one promise and exits under another. Your money is not safe here. Meanwhile, families are struggling with inflation, housing costs, groceries, insurance premiums, and energy bills, to say the least. Yet this legislature continues acting as if taxpayers are an unlimited ATM machine. A billion here, another billion there, always more spending, never enough accountability, never any restraint. And let's be honest about the larger consequences here. SB 26-135 could become one of the final straws, the kiss of death for Tabor refunds in Colorado. Say the slow goodbye to our taxpayer bill of rights and any future refund that the people so desperately need for their own families. Tabor was created to protect the people from exactly this kind of unchecked government appetite. Want, want, want, take, take, take. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Tabor, guarantees when Colorado government collects more than it needs, the excess goes back to the taxpayers who earned it in the first place. But every year, this legislature finds another way to carve away refunds, retain more revenue, create more exceptions, and hoodwink. This bill removes us one step closer to a Colorado where Tabor refunds exist in name only. A Colorado where tax over collections are never returned because the legislature always finds another emergency. another program another for the kids for the whales could be next or whatever heartstring justification to keep the people money The people of Colorado need to hear this. They need to know what's happening. You want this to go to the ballot, which I find ironic, because yesterday we fought, or you fought, against something going to the ballot because the people won't understand 175. Yet today, you want to go to the ballot with this measure because suddenly they're going to understand. That they can just read the blue book on this. Why was that not good enough for 175, but yet it's just fine for this one? because they'll understand this and not that. Makes no sense to me. They somehow will forget how to comprehend between the ballot measures, apparently. So which is it? You either trust the people to read and vote, or you don't. Or is it because this one? They will be able to hide the truth with twisted words in the blue book. you can't control the other but you can control this the same bill you want is just as misleading as 175 it is not giving all the information saying without raising taxes is false it steals the money already taken from you the people and the people will never get it back again they need you to know that more than a billion dollars proposal with vague promises and no guarantees is what is between the sheets they need to see the people need to see these programs sold with emotional slogans and written with loopholes large enough to drive a rocket ship through cannot be trusted. They must hear that the decisions made are farther and farther away from actual public scrutiny. If this legislature truly wants to fund education, then write a bill that guarantees, guarantees all of the money reaches the students. Write a bill with complete transparency. Write a bill with strict protections against sideline fund transfers and sleight-of-hand diversions. Write a bill that respects the taxpayers instead of treating their refunds as government property waiting to be seized, stolen. Because once again, Tabor is effectively gone with this. The people of Colorado will never get that power back. They'll never see their money again. This bill can suck Tabor dry with zero cap. zero rules and zero restrictions all under the nose of the people with so many people fleeing the state of Colorado to states that they can live free they can afford, that has the values of their families that values their business, that allows them to raise their children and allows them to live affordably this money may not even be necessary so then what? It'll be used for much, much more than what the kids are bargaining for. Protect transparency Protect accountability Protect the taxpayers of Colorado I asking for a no vote on this because this is not right and Colorado deserves much better

Representative DeGraff. Take my time. I'll go. You know, I think this is an excellent bill to help educate the students of Colorado. I think we ought to start with legislation 101. What it says it is, it ain't. That's really what you need to know about this building, this room. Legislation 101, what it says it is, it ain't. This is a blank check for an empty promise. Our schools are hurting Throwing money at them is not going to help. I remember a study a long time ago that linked your proximity to Canada for school success to be much higher. The correlation between student success was higher for its proximity to Canada over how much money was spent per pupil. And are we having trouble retaining teachers? It sounds like it. Is pay the issue? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it's the agenda. I don't think it's the teachers that are causing the failure in education in Colorado. I think it's the administration. And money is not going to help that. I know teachers that just say, I can't take it. I can't take the – I can't – they're not willing to promote the agenda that is promoted, that is promulgated by the Gold Dome cesspool. That's an issue. you can't just throw money at people who have actual values and refuse to inundate the kids with the ideology that is forced out of this room. We have the money. This money, let's see, what do we have this year for, what is the Tabor surplus this year? What is the surplus for 2025? Zero. The surplus for 2025 is zero. And where we used to have billions, we're maybe looking at less than half a billion for 2026. I'm not sure what that's really based on, but that's the forecast, because it sure seems like when you have businesses that are saying, look, you've already lost headquarters, you've already lost people, you have office space in northern Denver going for one-tenth the cost that it was. I don't know what that's going to be based on. We've had billion-dollar companies pack up and leave. The money for this is in the ground. It's literally in the ground. And it's in the billions of dollars that the governor insists on spending on grift. Easily billions of dollars per year in your road funds, in your transportation funds. so again I think when we look at the initiatives on 175 the General Assembly is afraid that the people will understand that ballot initiative on 135 I think they're confident that they won't on 135 I think the blue book I think we'll see the ads of just going out there and somebody singing in the arms of an angel. It's for the children. And it will be left and it will be tugging on heartstrings So people of Colorado tax widgets of Colorado this bill would not be necessary if Colorado prioritized education which it does not I encourage you when this comes to the You on the Ballot initiative, remember it's in the blue book. It's only in the blue book because of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It's in the blue book, it's Taxpayer Bill of Rights, because it's a tax increase. Money that would have already come back to you anyways, money that is yours, that surplus that would have come back to you, that no longer comes back to you, is a tax increase. Why does the General Assembly want to get rid of the blue book? Why does it want to get rid of your Bill of Rights as a taxpayer? because it does not want to ask you if it can raise taxes. It wants to just raise taxes. These type things, these type bills, they're exhausting. You have to come up with all kinds of creative mechanisms in order to raise the taxes on the citizens of Colorado and then act like you're not raising the taxes on the citizens of Colorado. This is a tax increase. Remember when we had $4 billion. When we had a $4 billion surplus, that was $1,000 per piece, roughly, for the taxpayers. So if we're projecting a $4 billion surplus sometime in the future, which would be, what, 12 times higher than what we were anticipating getting magically in 2026, and the only change that we've had in the economy is what happened in January of 2025. Again, it's a blank check for an empty promise. I would like for the General Assembly to reject it. It won't. So I'm asking the citizens of Colorado, when you see this, just understand legislation 101, what it says it is, it ain't. Vote no. Is there any further discussion?

is there any further discussion seeing none the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 135 as amended all those in favor say aye All those opposed, no. You have passed Senate Bill 135 as amended.

AML Bacon. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 115 and I believe the Judiciary Committee report. And, okay. I move the Appropriation and Judiciary Committee reports.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Appropriations Committee, we ran a J Amendment that allocated $600 to the Office of the State Public Defender, and there was a reflection of the reduction in funds that will result from this bill. Let me ask for a yes vote on the Appropriations Committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Judiciary Committee, we brought an amendment, thanks to our colleague from the North Side, who pointed out that there was some language in the bill that was received redundant around those who were convicted of the most severe crimes. The bill created a path for the people who were convicted of the most severe crimes to petition for their sentences to be shortened with permission of district attorneys. And there's already a process for that in existing law. And so that language was unnecessary. And we ask for an aye vote on the Judiciary Committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L015 to the Judiciary Committee report. All right, that's a proper motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this amendment is actually conforming language to what was in the prison population management bill, which was Senate Bill 36. So this excludes individuals who were subject to a plea agreement. And the reason for this is someone who has agreed to a certain terms of years in prison for the crime they had committed, they should serve out those ones. It's the ones that have gone to a jury trial and have been sentenced to the court that then would still be subject to being looked at for this program where if you've served 20 years and you're over the age of 60, you could petition the court over the next three years for an evidentiary hearing to have your sentence reexamined. So we want to be consistent between Senate Bill 36 and Senate Bill 115 and have that language mirror within the two bills and would ask for a yes vote.

And I stand up here in agreeance with this amendment. Basically what we're saying is if you made a deal and you agreed to it, you should stick to it. So if we're going to put people in jail and they have some sort of plea deal or whatever agreement they made for their own sentencing, that by God they stand by exactly what they said they were going to do. Let's have some accountability. Let's give responsibility for what they said they were going to do and make sure that the sentence that they agreed to is upheld, that is right, that is just.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we're going to ask for a no vote on this amendment. that plea bargaining and sentencing, I believe, should not matter with what we're talking about with this bill. What we're talking about with this bill is people who have spent a very long time in jail and who are old in prison. In prison. Thank you, Your Honor. Got my terminology wrong. But we're talking about people who have spent a very long time in prison, who are over 60 years old, who a court in the totality of the circumstances determine are eligible for another hearing. This does not guarantee release. It just says there's a process for you to petition for another hearing where you might get your sentence reduced. We think there's already sufficient guardrails on that, so we're asking for a no vote.

Thank you Madam Chair And I stand up here in disagreement with that last statement I believe that people who agree to uphold a sentence structure that they agreed upon they should stand by it. Those who spend a long time, you want to know who spends a long time, are the victims. The victims don't get a break. The victims don't get let out early. the victims have to handle it and have to live through what they had to go through, the crime that was done to them or their family member for the rest of their lives. So why should we give someone who agreed to a sentence a break when that victim that they perpetrated that crime on will never for the rest of their life ever get that same consideration or a break?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We're in that part of session where we have the committee hearing and second reading. We're making sure we have our amendments situated here.

AML Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my co-prime. Members, what I'd like to add or reiterate, if you did have an opportunity to look at the bill in the fiscal note, the number of people that we're talking about that this can apply to is not very big. At the end of the day, our criminal justice system has had different pathways to be able to question sentences or to adjust them. Some of you may have heard of the terms clemency or pardons. In case law, I'm sorry, in court rule now, there are motions that people can file when they've been sentenced. It's rule 35, A, B, or C. We also have a system that tries to reintegrate people back into society and community through parole or manages people through probation. What this bill says is that those who are at the age of 60 or older, who have served 20 years, which is the overwhelming majority, if not critical mass, of their sentencing, have an opportunity to petition a court to be resentenced, as they would if they applied for it right after they were convicted. I think what's important to note about this as well as a matter of policy, because we do hear the commentary about, you know, the pursuits of justice. We hear the commentary about the things that Colorado are doing. Well, we would join two dozen states who have moved in this direction, including some of our brother and sister states to the east and to the south. on that list includes Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, along with Connecticut, North Dakota. And so what we want people to understand is, even though we will first be the first people to say that we recognize that being a victim of crime is devastating, could be the worst day that one faces but we have a system that puts people through a trial with the jury and a judge and sometimes those sentences come back where the sentence is not life without parole or that one would spend their entire life behind bars And sometimes when we hear from people, we have to say that through the course of justice in our system, people have been sentenced. Some of those sentences won't keep them in jail forever, but some of those sentences are very long. And the purpose of long sentences are first for accountability. The second is so that folks can be, quote-unquote, corrected, since our system is called corrections, that they can go through rehabilitation. And so after a particular amount of time, which is two decades, and a demonstration of if they actually responded to the work that they did while in corrections, they should have an opportunity to be resentenced. And again, what the bill does is it just says you have an opportunity after you've demonstrated that you've lived up to some of these expectations that you can then go before a judge and then the judge in their expertise can submit a new sentence. And so again, we see these tools across our criminal justice system, across the country, when it comes to sentencing. The last thing I'll say is, and it's something that I said in committee, the deal that we kind of strike with our criminal justice system is a mix between how do we hold someone accountable for what they did, how can we figure out the extent to which we can support under rehabilitation, because at some point we do let people out, and they can't come back into community with no skills or not having taken any accountability. But the other thing that we talk about amongst ourselves as constituencies are also our commitment with being able to maintain and support the systems. A third of the people remanded to Department of Corrections are over the age of 55. And the older you get, the more it costs our taxpayers and their risk for recidivism goes down. So recidivism risk goes down and the costs go up. And so another reason that we are bringing this bill is to find a cross between all of those balances. At the end of the day, this bill actually does save us some money. And again, the people have to go through very rigorous processes and an assessment by a judge. And so I will stop there on the bill, but I would like to move our amendments. We have some technical fixes we need to make. And with that, Madam Chair, I move L13 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you. Sorry. Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment comes from our drafter. We found a drafting error, and we need to change it. You can see strike 1A or 1B and just substitute 1. After we made amendments, particularly on the Senate side, we did not catch this, and we ask for an aye vote.

Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. We heard this bill on committee a few hours ago. Yeah, it feels like weeks ago, but now it was just a mere few hours ago. One thing that came up was to add to the reporting requirements of judicial back to the joint judiciary within the SMART Act hearings, and that it would be very important if we could have some information such as what the sentence was determined to be, how much time was left on the original sentence, whether victims were consulted and were found, whether they participated in the evidentiary hearing or not. and that's why I move Amendment L024 and ask that it be properly displayed.

All right, the amendment is up. Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this does, as I described, it adds to the reporting requirements that judicial would need to bring back because it's important that while we engage in this experiment, assuming the bill passes, the bill has a three-year window that opens. And so when this window opens, the 39 people that were identified in the fiscal note as being able to apply will likely lion's share will make their way to an evidentiary hearing would be my guess that they've served 20 calendar years and are over the age of 60 and don't fall in one of the categories in which they're excluded. That being said, we should know more about what's going on here because one question I asked during the committee was why wouldn't the window just be extended, say, in a couple years' time because we may have another wave of people that are going to be entering this window that are over the age of 60 and have served at least 20 calendar years. And so we should be able to have more information so that that future General Assembly can weigh all the factors at that point in time to see if this change in policy that we're talking about in 2026, by the time we hit 2029, we have a full picture. And so this adds to the information that would be returned to the General Assembly and would ask for a yes vote.

Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. We ask for a yes vote on this amendment. I want to thank, well, I know he's bringing amendments that I'm asking for a no vote on. But we just worked with our stakeholders in the hallway and the Judicial Department on this. The bill already has reporting requirements for us and the Judiciary Committee as part of the SMART Act hearings. And we're saying if this data is available to the Judicial Department, they should provide it to us. So we ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, considering I'm running a lotto bill a little later with the good representative from Denver, I'm feeling a little lucky. So I move amendment L021 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Okay Representative Sober to the amendment Thank you Madam Chair So within the bill there a list of factors that the court must consider within the evidentiary hearing and we'd like to add to this factor list whether the defendant has complied with criminal or civil protection orders, because that's really important. If there is a protection order out there that we want that individual to comply and not be out of compliance, and for the court to consider that before granting a resentencing. I would ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we also worked with our colleague from Delta on this. I believe that it was captured in the catch-all language of the bill already where it says the judge can consider other relevant factors or says something along those lines. also believe that this is relevant and ask for a yes vote.

All right, let's see if I have as much luck as my good colleague from Delta over here. I'll get to my amendment in a second. But ultimately, members, what are we doing? We were being asked to create yet another pathway for serious offenders to come back before the courts and seek reduced sentences years after those sentences were imposed. I believe this bill reflects a broader shift in how this legislator approaches public safety and criminal justice. This year alone, we've passed or introduced multiple bills, expanding opportunities for resentencing and early release, despite already having mechanisms like earn time, good behavior time, Rule 35B, Rule 35C, ComCorp step-down programs, special needs parole, clemency, and pardon. Now we're being told that if someone is over 60, they're less likely to re-offend. 60 years old isn't exactly ancient, but I digress. What also concerns me is the legal standard in this bill. It only requires a preponderance of the evidence, meaning something is more likely true than not. That is a very low standard for determining whether someone no longer poses a danger to the community. The reality is that judges, experts, and legislators will not predict future behavior with certainty, and when those judgments are wrong, the public pays the price. Supporters frame this as a narrow process for supposedly low-risk individuals, but this applies to people convicted of very serious crimes. Something horrific had to have happened for these lengthy sentences to be imposed in the first place. At some point, we have to ask what message we are sending. Should lengthy sentences for serious violent crimes still mean something decades later, or are we becoming so uncomfortable with long-term incarceration that we continuously revisit punishments that were lawfully imposed? I know that most Coloradans still believe serious crimes deserve serious consequences. For those reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on this bill, but I do move Amendment L016 and ask that it properly be displayed. That is a proper motion.

Further discussion on L16. Representative Mabry.

And those people have served 20 years in the Department of Corrections, and they're over 60 years old. And again, the bill only creates a pathway to have a petition on if you will maybe get a hearing, and then if you win that hearing, you get another hearing to maybe get resentenced. We think this is unnecessary. Please vote no.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We had this in committee just this morning, and we had quite a few testifiers, and what it boils down to that there is a loser when it comes to this bill, and that is the victims. I'd like to mention the same thing that I mentioned in committee, that this bill would be number 10 since 2019 of bills releasing criminals from jail early. Getting past the sentencing that was delivered to them for the crimes that they committed. We had SB 25190, which let criminals out, age 64, which this one is 60, But age 64, having had served 20 years, sound familiar, of their sentence, but not convicted of a Class 1 or Class 2 felony. Or they could be sick with a certain ailment, not necessarily life-threatening, and they can get out. This bill says 60, you can get out with nothing else going on. You can just get on out. SP 19-143 allows accelerated parole for inmates deemed low risk, which we've seen in the news and everywhere else, that this low risk rating had a 98% error rate, and they were allowing and letting out dangerous criminals back out into the public. SB 26036 lets inmates and criminals out if crime, regardless of how heinous or what kind of harm they did to a victim, as long as they're deemed or lowered in bargaining to be nonviolent, non-sex offender, and they can get out 90 days early. SB 26159, another one, earn time sentence reductions. increases the cap of the earned time for good behavior, allowing criminals out eight months earlier on a 10-year sentence, getting out early again. SB 26-158 allows the parole board to grant more early parole who are under the age of 21 at the time of the crime if they go to some classes. HB 19-12-63, that converts certain drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, again, lowering sentences. SB 19 reduced incarceration for blatant parole violations and more earned timed allowances letting them out early HB 21 I sorry HB 21 expand opportunities for juvenile offenders to obtain sentence reconsiderations and early releases HV 231037 allows less than violent criminal inmates to earn substantial sentence reductions by taking college classes. And now we have SB 26115, number 10. If you stack them all together, well, heck, why should they even serve any time at all? These are all just from 2019. But what we don't see, what we don't see in judiciary, I can tell you this right now, are bills protecting victims and victims' rights to ensure the criminals, their violators, serve the time they deserve for what they did, what they did to these victims. We don't see any of those bills. Oh, no, no. We just protect the criminal, not the victims. Along with the recent 10 laws passed letting criminals out of jail early, there are the cracks in the system. A flawed system that we have seen time and time again letting violent criminals back out into the public. This is yet another bill making Colorado less safe. We are ranked third most dangerous state in the United States. And after the list of laws I mentioned, plus the other soft-on crime prior to sentencing laws passed, it's not a surprise. I'm not surprised. Rehabilitation may help their souls, but it does not. And it will never dismiss the crime. and it should never dismiss the sentence imposed for that crime. A sentence is not only about punishing the offender appropriately, it is also about delivering justice to victims and help to make them as whole as possible after unimaginable harm. This bill puts victims last. We're told victim statements are possibly considered during release considerations, But today, from many victims, we heard just the opposite. Criminals deserve every single day of the sentence they were given behind bars. That is justice. That is accountability. That is right. One victim today, one victim said today that victims do not get a second chance. and no truer words were ever spoken in that chamber. Victims are the ones that should be heard, heard at sentencing, and it shall be done. This bill causes them to see their words, their harm, their lifelong trauma is less than, less than the offender that made them into the lifelong victim. They don't get parole. They don't get released from their pain because they took a college course or because they're over the age of 60. The process of bringing violent criminals to justice is long, traumatic, emotionally exhausting, and enormously expensive in many ways. Victims and their families are forced to relive the worst circumstances moments of their lives so the system can ensure these criminal offenders receive the strongest sentencing possible for the crimes they chose to commit. And now through this bill and others like it, victims are being victimized all over again. Turning 30, 40, 60 years old does not erase the devastation these criminals caused. Age does not undo murder, assault, abuse, or lifelong trauma. The harm these criminals inflicted remains with the victims and families forever. This bill is egregious. It is an affront to victims and an insult to justice and a betrayal of every person who trusted this system to protect them and honor the suffering they endured. These criminals chose to do the crime. They must do the time. Sorry or not, behaving later or not, taking college classes or not, they gave no mercy. they gave no mercy when they committed their crimes and they should get no mercy from doing the time I was a no I was a strong and fast no in committee and I am a strong and no vote today, tomorrow and forever We stand for victims, or we should in this state. I'm sad to have to debate this bill. It shouldn't even exist, and I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to read a statement that we heard in committee. Greetings, Chair and Council. My name is Charlotta Evans. I am the Executive Director and Founder of Colorado Crime Survivors Network, Inc., whose mission is to support, advocate, collaborate, and build coalitions for victims and offenders in addition to at-risk youth. The work that I have done has yielded great reward and great knowledge. The reward gave me the opportunity to be seated at the United States Supreme Court and submit my amicus brief testimony on behalf of those kids who were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The knowledge I gained through my experiences working with survivors is that each survivor is different, as is their journey. They should never be treated as a monolithic group. However, today I come to you as a victim family member and a mother. A victim because December 21, 1995, a 15-year-old kid carelessly, aimlessly, accidentally shot a gun that took the life of my three-year-old son, Kason Evans. That kid was sentenced to prison. After the passage of quite a bit of time through prayer and restorative justice, I took a second look I went against the norm I forgave him This forgiveness gave me the closure that I needed the peace that I needed as a victim Not only did it gain healing for me I gained a friend I could return back to community again. I gained faith again. I gained trust in a broken society again. This kid, Raymond Johnson, served decades in prison, but has been home for five years. And in the last five years, I have not been disappointed because I gained a son. As a mother, I can live again. I can hug again. I have a son again. I forgave Raymond Johnson, so I have hope again. Please understand that offenders change, but victim survivors change too. This bill is an opportunity for the criminal system and the victims to have a second look. Thank you for this opportunity today to share my words. I am in support of this bill, Senate Bill 26-115. We also want to note that Raymond wanted to come and read this for Charlotta, but he's working and couldn't make it. And so that note is that he was able to reenter society and community. I know sometimes that we have to do very hard work and we want to support our constituents, but I hope that we can remember that they come from all different walks of life. and as we heard, they are not monoliths. I also want to point out that every day we start session a certain way. Every day we gavel in a certain way. And I think what you just heard is a different version of faith and forgiveness and restorative justice. The Second Look program is an opportunity for a judge to reissue a sentence just like a judge issued the sentence the first time. And with that, members, we encourage an aye vote.

I love forgiveness. I think it's fantastic when a victim can do that, but I don't think the state can do that on behalf of the victim. I'm in favor of compassion for even the victimizers. I think they still maintain a level of rights that we hold these truths to be self-evident. But the crime that was committed, some of these heinous crimes, that was a choice. that was a choice and a long sentence is ultimately a second chance it's a second chance to live without violating the rights of others now it's great when it works out but we also know that say there's a similar crime in that area that person who was released will be the first victim, or the first suspect, rather. And why? Because of the recidivism rate. So how do we guarantee that there not recidivism Well how do we guarantee that somebody who made the choice no longer has the appetite to make that choice Once upon a time, I thought 60 was pretty old. I don't think 60 is that old. it's not old at all I can reassure you exactly so when we talk here like 60 is old like they're like they're entering their dotage or something like that good thing I'm so far away from that age so 60 years old heinous crimes, 20 years in prison. But how do we make sure that this person doesn't offend again? So what is the potential cost? Only $39 possible that it would apply to, but what is the potential cost? Do we put something in there like double or nothing? because it's just low value to another victim to know, to find out that the individual was let out. And hopefully, as in the case that was demonstrated, that individual will continue. But the risk to society is high. And our job, our role is to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the citizens of Colorado and the United States.

Hang on to that thought Thank you Madam Chair I did have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask the sponsors just for clarifying some things in the bill One thing the bill makes incredibly clear is that in this three-year window, a person who does go through the petition and then is able to move on to an evidentiary hearing, they only get one evidentiary hearing. But it's not clear how many petitions they may be able to file. And so I wanted to ask on the record what the intent is there.

So I had a question, which was the bill is very clear in terms of you only get one evidentiary hearing during that three-year period. but how many petitions could you have within that three-year period? Because I don't know that that is necessarily clear if you can have multiple petitions. And then I guess the secondary question that I would have, we know that first-degree murder is excluded, but would any sort of second-degree murder or less also be part of the bill?

they can petition one time and second degree murder I do believe that it's eligible but also So, you know, the district attorney has to agree. I'm sorry. I know it's in the bill. We enumerated which grants you want me to get it. I can pull that up real quick. Is that okay?

Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. And we can look at that offline as well.

Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. While we're looking at that, I will move an amendment, Amendment L019, and ask that it be properly displayed.

Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. We wanted to move this amendment really to talk about crimes of violence and to add this to the list of what's not included here and would ask for a yes vote.

I glad you didn demote me there I move Amendment L017 and ask that it be properly displayed That is a proper motion

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this adds domestic violence to the list of offenses that would not be considered for this post-conviction reanalysis of theirs. sentencing. And it's the idea or theory that domestic violence is one of those horrible crimes that you would not want to have the offender re-looked at. We've heard certainly from many victims that this is one thing that they do not want to ever see their perpetrator again, and so we would like to add this to the list. Thank you.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 167. Senate Bill 167 by Senators Benavidez-Molica, also representatives Basenegger and Lindsay, concerning a covered person's contribution under a health benefit plan based on out-of-pocket expenses attributable to the purchase of prescription drugs.

To the bill.

Seeing no further discussion on Senate... Representative Barone. Got to be in the well.

Representative Bradfield.

Further discussion on Senate Bill 167. Seeing none, Representative, seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 167. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 167 is passed.

Representative Basenecker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll keep my remarks brief, but at the core, Senate Bill 145 is about good governance. What this says is that when voters approve billions of dollars in public funding for school facilities, they're placing a profound level of trust in local government systems to make thoughtful, transparent decisions on their behalf. half. That trust is foundational and it must be earned through clear, inclusive, and accountable process. What this does is it says that when school districts develop bond proposals, there's a transparent and consistent approach to gathering input and that it has to include our charter school as well. It just includes them in the conversation, doesn't guarantee outcomes, but it just guarantees some visibility to the needs of those charter schools. And we believe that ultimately strong public systems depend on public confidence, and this is one of the ways we can encourage those pieces. We ask for your support. Representative Gilchrist. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are bringing

Seeing no further discussion on Senate Bill 145. Oh, Representative, no. Okay, the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 145. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 145 is passed.

Representative Lukens. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 173.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In 2015, this body exempted yoga teacher training from the regulation under the Private Occupational Education Act of 1981. Since 2015, Pilates and bar teacher training programs have been operating under the assumption that because they are nearly identical types of teacher training programs, they are also exempt from that regulation. over the past year, the Division of Private Occupational Schools has sent at least six cease and desist letters to Palatis and Bar teacher training programs, notwithstanding there have been no complaints from their consumers, and I will pass it on to my good co-prime sponsor to explain the text of the bill itself.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a simple question. What is the difference between Barr and Pilates?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Any further discussion on Senate Bill 173? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 173. All those in favor say namaste. Say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 173 passes.

Representative Zokai. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 116.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Most of this bill is technical updates that are non-substantive. The one substantive piece of it is capping the business personal property tax exemption at $58,000, and we ask for a yes vote.

Representative Locke. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have not yet had a chance to read this bill, and I was very excited by the title, Property Tax Modifications. I thought you were going to embrace my idea of eliminating property taxes in Colorado. I'm kind of sad that you're saying it's just technical changes.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just so you know and the body knows, there are a number of other states who are looking at, if not already eliminating property taxes and finding other ways to fund their local governments and local schools, I think we should follow suit.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 117. Senate Bill 117 by Senators Bridges and Amabile, also Representatives Mabry and Soper, concerning permissible methods for the sale of lottery tickets.

To the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, members, there's this guy named Mr. Beast. and Mr. Beast is an influencer. He's a Gen Z influencer and he makes these crazy videos where he spends millions of dollars doing all sorts of crazy things, building forts, making people live in grocery stores. Well, last year he had a video where he bought $750,000 in scratchers and then filmed himself scratching them all off to see if they would win their money back and the result was they won back $125,000. Anyways, this bill bans the use of a credit card for the purchase of a lottery ticket, and we ask you to vote yes.

Thank you Madam Chair As a millennial I admit I never heard of Mr Beast but I will say the odds of winning the lottery are like three drops in 70 Olympic swimming pools And that's why we don't want people buying lottery tickets on credit cards, because they should have the actual money, not be putting it out there on credit when the mega millions gets up to a billion dollars, and then they also have this big debt that they have just acquired because the odds are very low. And we'd ask for a yes vote.

Senate Bill 156 by Senators Kip and Carson, and also Representatives Phillips and Gonzalez concerning changes to the State Workforce Development Council's practices and in connection therewith reducing in appropriation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. I move Senate Bill 156. To the bill. Senate Bill 156 generates $46,605 in general fund savings by streamlining the Colorado Workforce Development Council statutory workload. Good bill. Vote yes.

Thank you Madam Chair and I will not add much to what my co-prime said This bill saves us money, this is a good bill to streamline our workforce practices and our statute to make sure it's relying to the modern day It has not been updated in over 10 years so it's time to modernize and we ask for an aye vote

Senate Bill 133 by Senators Bridges and Catlin, also Representatives Martinez and Taggart, concerning the authorization to establish an artist company in the state and in connection therewith, enacting the Colorado Artist Company Act and making

with you. Oh, to the, do we have a business affairs? Okay, it is an honor to serve with you, too, but do I skip over the Business Affairs and Labor Committee report? I haven't quite moved it yet, Madam Chair, but I'd be more than happy to.

I moved Senate Bill 133 and the Business Affairs Committee report.

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. We added in a few amendments. First amendment was to clarify that existing LLCs can elect to become an artist company by amending articles rather than formal conversion processes. We also added in an amendment that made the bill work more smoothly with federal tax law, especially for artist companies that are taxed as partnerships. And we request an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It is still an honor to serve with you. This bill is centered around the fact that business structures in Colorado were not designed for businesses, LLCs in particular. We're designed for those of us that build companies around tangible assets That means assets that have a physical presence We have never had an LLC structure that is built around intellectual property and in particular, intellectual property that is shared. So think of this from the standpoint of a documentary. You have a video crew and somebody that's responsible for the video side of things. You have writers. You have voice overs, potentially. So you have considerable contributors around one potential intellectual property. And the purpose of this bill is to take an LLC structure and tune it for the purpose of these artists. And that will help them collaborate together. It will help them then share. they would bring that documentary into their company and be able to share the royalties on an ongoing basis. The bill's lengthy from the standpoint that it talks about the setup of this LLC. It also talks about the disillusionment of it if necessary. It's also very clear that the creative people have to have control of this LLC. In other words, if I've got four creative people involved, they have to, in combination, own at least 51% of the business. It is very much an LLC, but it's very fine-tuned to the creative people that they have a business. because right now, and some people ask, well, Rick, why would you want this? They can do this today. Yes, they can. Each one of them can have an interaction with an attorney and set up all sorts of legal documents that will cost them a fortune. This one, they can follow a template, a blueprint, for the purposes of setting up that LLC, and then they have the benefit of a business structure that is built directly for them. And I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of all the basists in Colorado, we request an aye vote.

So this is a very, thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very interesting bill. And so I'm just wondering a couple of things. why an LLC? Why only an LLC as opposed to allowing for other options for them to pursue? Are there any other areas where we do specialize in this and would this cover a publishing house? A publishing house.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to my good colleague from Penrose. so the reason why we selected an LLC with this is because this seems to be where the artists and musicians and other artistry have gone to create their business and what they have found is that the current LLC is kind of that cookie cutter model of a business model and that hasn't been working for them so they're having to create their LLC but then having to do all of these sub variations for it just to be able to meet what their standard is depending on what they do. And so that's why we selected that. And then in regards to like a musician or a band, that all four members would have equal ownership of that music, where in the current structure, like only one person would have the ownership, and this is what they felt was more equitable. And then I'll turn it over to my good co-prime for the other answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would add to that, if you were to go down the road of a C Corporation versus a pass-through, it's double taxation for the purposes of those artists. because they would pay the taxation on their personal income by way of that corporation, and they would pay their own individual taxes, and then they would pay corporate taxes on top of that. So in this particular case, LLCs work wonderfully to avoid double taxation. The second question is if the publishing house was associated with the artists, in other words, the artists made the decision that they'd also like to publish their works, then it would work fine. If it's a separate and distinct publishing house that the artists are not a part of, then it wouldn't. Because, again, to have this statute work, the artists have to basically have control of the company in 51%. So I don't rule it out. I think it's somewhat unlikely, though.

So the other question was...

Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize. I was just reminding of the third question that I asked, which is, is there anything else in Colorado law that has such a unique creation, such that we create these statuses for a particular area like this, or is this a one-off?

Thank you, Madam Chair. To answer your question, in terms of pass-through organizations, you also have an S-corporation, which is a little more complicated than an LLC, and certainly you have partnerships. But the partnership, when you're potentially having a collaboration with four or five, A band, for instance, now the partnership agreements get more complex again, and the LLC makes it much simpler. It's one document, and the bill is very clear. You can have different percentages of ownership, et cetera, et cetera. I'll just deviate for a second. I'm going to age myself. My favorite band of all time is the Eagles, and it's always going to be. the Eagles broke up over this. This was the major reason they broke up, because they never ever put in writing how much each contribution was, and the more minor members of the Eagles finally had had enough and said we gone because Glenn Frey and Don No no no Felder was one of the guys that left Don Henley really controlled the whole thing. So anyway, this would have helped the Eagles if it existed back then.

And also, in addition to the basis for the remnants of the Eagles, we request an aye vote. Yes, thank you.

I would argue that drugs contributed to the disruption of the Eagles and maybe a little devil in that song they wrote, but besides that. This is the question I would have for the sponsors. This is the question I would have for the sponsors. So I looked at this a lot because this is a very niche thing. And I've followed these kind of things specifically in the arena of music. I am a musician. I've had some groups and things over the years. But I don't see any reason why you can't do all of the stuff that your bill does without the bill. It doesn't seem like. Music groups already make LLCs. They have learned from the drug-induced groups of the past. I don't see the need for this bill. I don't necessarily think it's a bad bill, but I don't see the need for it because all of the stuff in the bill, I couldn't find anything in the bill that is not already available, except it does, and I will give it this. It has made Colorado kind of people open their eyes and look at Colorado, except that you can already do this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to my colleague from El Paso County for this. So I think that the two distinct differences, or there's two distinct differences with this and why we're essentially running this. I think, one, what we were hearing is that, again, that the standard LLC was acceptable, but they were having to make a bunch of sub-variations per every LLC to meet their particular need. And so I think that that's why it's niche. And honestly, this is, well, two reasons why I got on the bill. One, I'm a musician myself. But then, too, I think that not having a cookie-cutter model for everything that we're doing when it doesn't fit and it's not working is something that I've prided myself on being here in the General Assembly. And this is definitely something that makes it unique and it makes it workable for this unique area. And then also being broad enough for, again, musicians, artists, you know, written poetry to be able to act. And then the other bit is the 51% ownership, I think, is not included in the current LLC.

Chair, thank you. I'm not going to completely blow this up, but there were a couple of questions I had in committee. As far as an analog, there's nobody else in the nation that I believe that is doing this, which doesn't necessarily mean that I think we need to be screaming inside ways to be the first. And I don't know that there's necessarily any reason why this can't be taken care of under a typical LLC structure. Now I understand that a yes vote would give the bill sponsors quite the peaceful easy feeling but I just don know that this is one that I going to be able to support at this time Is there further discussion on Senate Bill 133 Seeing none the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 133 All those in favor say aye

Senate Bill 181 by Senators Mabal and Kirkmeyer, also Representatives Brown and Taggart, concerning modifying the Colorado Works Program.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 181. To the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 181 updates the Colorado Works Program by modifying reserve requirements, eligibility flexibility, and cost of living adjustment provisions within the state's temporary assistance for needy families or TANF program. The bill provides additional flexibility for state and county administration of the Colorado Works funding and helps ensure the long-term sustainability of the program. This is yet another one of the very difficult decisions that the JBC has had to make to pause cost of living adjustments. Unfortunately, the TANF program in Colorado has had the same roughly $130 million since the TANF program was created in the late 90s. It is increasingly challenging for us to live within the federal means, especially as costs grow for folks who are on the program. So the JBC brings this bill in order for us to help to live within the means of the funding that's available for this program. And I ask for an aye vote. Representative Taggart.

And I would just reinforce, this is one of those painful decisions we had to make. And the cost of living, just so you know, the bill deletes that for the next two years, but does come back in July of 2028. The other component of the bill that will help is there were a lot of very stringent requirements in the past around reserve levels, both at a state level and a county level, and it does eliminate those and give a lot more flexibility in particular to our counties on this very difficult but yet needed program. And I would ask for an aye vote.

Senate Bill 35 by Senator Roberts, also Representative Clifford, concerning an increase of traffic violation penalties and in connection there with making an appropriation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 35 and the Transportation, Housing, and Local Government and Appropriations Committee reports.

In the Appropriations Committee reports, we changed a section of the bill from 15 miles an hour over the speed limit to 20 miles an hour over the speed limit to accommodate the Department of Revenue's software, and I urge an aye vote Seeing no further discussion on the Appropriations Committee report all those in favor say aye All those opposed no

Madam Chair, we made one technical amendment on the Transportation, Housing, and Local Government report, and I request an aye vote. Seeing no further discussion on the committee report, the question before us is the adoption of the Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee report.

Before I speak to the bill, we have amendments that another sponsor is going to run, and then I will speak to the amended bill.

Representative Joseph. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by thanking Senator Roberts for bringing this bill forward. My understanding, he brought Senate Bill 35 because his district is in need of this particular piece of policy because of the fast driving and all the accidents that's taken place in his area. and as a representative from Boulder, I fully understand sometimes we have to bring bills to protect our districts. So in that spirit, I would like to bring some amendments to the bill and part of the reasons why it's because I've had the opportunity to work in this space before and looking at the bill, although it talks about that we have had a rise in deadly traffic collisions in recent years, including multiple heads-on and other fatal crashes in rural areas and across the state that have claimed numerous lives, which is extremely important. We need to protect lives, and that's a goal that we all can get behind because at the end of the day, we all drove here today, and we want to be safe on the roads. So I want to start and talk more about why it's so important to amend this bill today. The first part of the bill is the non-statutory part of the bill, and it talks about aggressive driving, illegal overtaking of a vehicle on the left in a no-passing zone, and repeated excessive speeding violations, significantly increasing the risk of serious injuries and death on Colorado roads and undermine efforts to protect all road users, which is extremely important. And also it notes that there is a demonstrated need to clarify existing statutory definitions of no-passing zones, including that they are indicated by solid yellow lines or line pavement markings and to strengthen enforcement and penalties to deter these behaviors. And it talks about prioritizing installing of appropriate warning and regulatory signage on roadways with elevated incident rates of illegal passing and other hazardous driving behaviors. All this is in the non-statutory legislative declarations. And then when we go to Section 2 of the bill, it talks about the point system of improper passing. If you go to that section of the statute around improper passing, which is 42-2, 127, as drafted in this bill, improper passing went from four points to eight points. But if you go into, for instance, you go look at the definition of improper passing, for instance, when I go to the CSP.colorado.gov, While there are many behaviors that indicate aggressive driving or road rage situations, some example of improper passing is overtaking on a no-passing zone, passing a blind curve, cutting off another driver after passing, passing when overcoming traffic is too close, oncoming traffic is too close. So all these behaviors could lead to an eight-point. So basically we are going from a four point to an eight point. So we are increasing the numbers of points assessed for improper passing from four to eight points. And I wanted to talk a little bit more about the driver's license point system. So the Colorado point system for suspension. And the reason why it's so important for me to talk about this, and one of the reasons why it's so important to amend this particular policy, policy, I have a university in my district. I have a lot of young people in my district. And to me, if this bill remain as is, it will just take away young people's license. If you're a minor driver, 17 and under, six points or more within 12 months will lead to a suspension. 12 or more points within 24 months, you will lose your license. 14 or more points at any point, you will no longer have a license. So if you're in a, well, no, let me go back. If you're a minor driver, 17 and under, you can have no more than 6 points within a 12-month period, 7 or more points at any point while driving under 18. So with this particular bill, if you have an 8-point improper passing, your license will be suspended. as a young person. And if you're a minor driver, 18 to 21, nine or more points within 12 months will lead to a suspension. 12 or more points within any 24 months period. Or 14 or more points at any time. And if you are someone over 21, 22 or more within a 12-month period, 18 or more within a 24-month period. The point is I want to make is that this particular policy as written is not going to lead to any change behavior. You're just going to have young people driving without a license. Or if you're a working person, your license gets pulled because of this particular bill. You're just going to drive without a driver's license. And we don't want that. We want people, you won't change behavior. That means if the person did improper pass or if they improperly passed, you want to make sure the penalty is to a point where they can change their behavior. If it's too punitive and they lose their license, they will just drive without a license. So now I still speaking to this bill Also if you are employed as a driver such as a taxi cab 16 or more points within 12 months you will lose your license Your license will be suspended 24 or more points within any 24 months, or 28 or more points within 48 months. An eight point on your license will not only more likely to lead to a suspension for a young person, it will also increase your insurance. Right? So now, let's talk about Section 3 of this bill. In Section 3 of the bill, it amends CRS 42-4-1005. It clarifies that no passing zones are indicated by a solid yellow line or pavement markings, which I have no problem with. I'm okay with this section of the bill. But nonetheless, the improper passing section of the bill, as drafted, goes from a four points to an eight point. It doubles the points. It prohibits driving on the left side of the road within clearly marked no passing zones, directs the Department of Transportation to prioritize installing signs in areas with increased crashes related to illegal overtaken within existing resources, which is great. And specified that increased crashes is a number increase from the previous year. Specifies that violations are classified as traffic infractions and requires that penalties for violation under this section are mandatory and court may not suspend any portion of the penalty. Again, that's another section of the bill that I find very concerning. The part around we are putting into law that the penalty imposed pursuant to this section for a violation of this section is mandatory. Hang on, Representative Joseph. This is around the penalties.

Thank you. This bill, because of this section, has become a strict liability issue. We want people to be able to negotiate, go to the court, and plead their case as well, because every circumstance is different. We don't want to take discretion away from the court, especially in these type of cases. So this is highly problematic. Other sections of the bill as well, a man's CRS 42-4-1101, It established additional point penalties for repeat speeding violations, second violations within 12 months, two additional points, third and subsequent violation within 24 months, four plus points, fifth or subsequent violations within five years, eight plus points. And it also adds an additional four points for driving at a speed of 100 miles per hour or greater. I do believe that section of the bill that talks about adding more points if you're driving 100 miles per hour, adding those additional points, I think it's fine because ultimately we want change behavior, and someone who's consistently driving recklessly should suffer some consequences. However, the bill as drafted just is too punitive. Section 5 talks about the summon and complaint requirements It demands CRS 42 It requires that individuals who meet the threshold for repeat speeding violations receive a summand and complaint instead of a penalty assessment notice And it applies when violations occur multiple times within specified time frame, 12 to 24 months. Section 6 of the bill, I think it's a very important section of the bill, around the hazardous material penalty increase. Again, these are for mostly commercial drivers. I do believe this is an important section of the bill. I did not look into that section as much because I do agree that we need to protect our drivers on the road and commercial vehicles have to play their parts. And then Section 7 around the appropriations and the effective date. Ultimately, as I have noted, the bill is too punitive and will take away driver's licenses from young drivers for a single infraction. And as I have noted, CU Boulder is in my district. This bill is simply too punitive for simple mistakes and relying on discretion of an officer who may or may not have had a bad day. And it does not take into effect road hazards or debris on road. But I do believe those discretions still remain with the officer. But my point is, if you are hit with an eight-point violation for improper passing, as it is described in the bill, I do believe that's too punitive. And I look forward to amend the bill, but there are people who want to speak on the bill. And I think prior to adding any amendment, these people should have the opportunity to speak.

Hey, somebody's trying to call you. IRS, don't worry about it.

Further discussion on the bill? Representative English or I gonna call the bill Representative Kelty thank you madam chair and you know I up here in opposition to this bill

Representative Joseph.

That is a proper motion. The amendment is before us. To the amendment, Representative Joseph.

Further discussion on L13? Representative Bradley?

Thank you. Further discussion? Representative Bottoms.

that's all i got further discussion on l13 representative clifford

All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L13 passes. To the bill, Representative Joseph.

That is a proper motion. Give us a minute. To the amendment, Representative Joseph.

Further discussion on L12? Seeing none, Representative Clifford.

Seeing no further discussion on L-12, the question before us is the adoption of L-12. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L-12 passes. To the bill, Representative English.

Representative Sucla.

Representative Kelty.

Representative Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. a couple of things about this. We already have an entire system to deal with volunteer firefighters, including in their personal vehicles. 421-102, they can get their vehicles authorized by the fire chief to be an authorized emergency vehicle. By the way, we do not allow someone to drive their personal vehicle unless they are an authorized emergency vehicle. It's just something they send into the Department of Revenue. It's a free registration. and they get a little red sticker that goes on the left corner of their windshield, but they almost must have lights and siren when they do that. We don't just let people just go drive unless they get their vehicle authorized. That's the law in Colorado. The other thing is if you have an emergency, if your wife is in labor and you need to rush someone to the hospital, if you'll dial 911 before you go, turn your emergency flashers on, you'll find that the police are really great with you the whole way. In fact, nine times out of ten, we will find somebody to give you an escort to get you through traffic as quickly as possible. That is the way you handle emergencies. It's not a real good idea to just put in law, just go ahead and chance it, and we won't charge you for it.

Representative Sucla. So I hate to disappoint the representative, but he is wrong. I was a volunteer firefighter for 12 and a half years, and I don't even know what red sticker he's talking about. But that is not true. You do not have to have some red sticker in your windshield to be a volunteer firefighter. You don't even have to have the firefighter plates, which I do, by the way. And you don't have to have the fire chief look at your vehicle and tell you it's okay. That is not true. I don't know where that came from, what comic book that came from, but that is not true. I was a volunteer firefighter for 12 and a half years. I busted my butt to protect people, and I don't like people writing law that they don't even know what they're talking about. This is a good amendment, and this is a yes vote.

I will get the good representative to go grab Title 42, sir. I'll give you a few sections out of there. So number one, authorized emergency vehicle, 421102, subsection 6, also includes privately owned vehicles designated by our DMV, and you do that by the fire chief sending in a letter to the Department of Revenue, and they will send you an authorized emergency vehicle sticker, and you will affix it to the left side of your windshield in the lower left corner, and that gives you some additional privileges while driving in that car. Now, I don't know what happened in your fire department, sir, but this has been the law of the state of Colorado for a very long time In 424 that gives you key privileges When responding to an emergency pursuing a violator or responding to a fire alarm but not returning to drivers of authorized emergency vehicles may park and stand anywhere ignoring normal parking rules proceed past red lights, stop signs after stopping for safety, exceed speed limits without endangering life or property, and disregard rules on moving or turning. They must use audible and visual signals, 42-4, 2-13 for most exemptions, and drivers have a duty to drive with regard for safety and be liable for reckless behavior. I don't know what your fire chief did, sir, or what you did or didn't do, but if you operated your private vehicle without having it registered with the Department of Revenue as an emergency vehicle, you violated state law in the state of Colorado. I urge a no vote.

where I live. That is the town of Mancos. That is the town of Dolores. That is the town of Pleasantview. That is the town of Lewis. That is the town of Cortez violated the law. There has never been no red sticker that we've had to put in there. And all of us, your phone goes off, it pages you, you get up out of the bed and you run to go save somebody's life and you and you jump in your personal vehicle and if you're one of your vehicles isn't running you jump in the other one you jump in your wives or you jump in your brothers or you steal the neighbors and you go and you try to help um somebody and we drive up into the driveway to the call and and uh and there has never been a red sticker so maybe what you're trying to say is is there's a law that there's always been that we haven't adhered to but it is hard enough to get firefighters to come and volunteer where I live. So the more stickers you want us to put on there and the more things that you want our fire chief to do, the less volunteer firefighters you're going to have. So maybe the law stops over the Rocky mountains on the West slope. And maybe that's a good thing. But 400 people that I know that are volunteer firefighters. I was just at their banquet last month and I didn't see a red sticker in any window and there were some of the best men that I've ever worked with and women in my life that go and save people and there was no red sticker or that somebody looking to kick my tires they don't even buy your tires you everything is your personal vehicle and and and uh you go and you you try to help people that's what we do where I live and I don't know where it is but maybe that's why it's so much better to live where I live than to live here because we don't have a red sticker that's up there where we can't see the deer that we're fixing to come hit.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I agree with my colleague from Anazim County. You know, this amendment isn't just for volunteer firefighters to make sure that they're able to go and save the lives that they're actually there to save. this amendment also carves out for any type of emergency situation that pops up like i hadn't mentioned before it could be anything to do with your child it could be doing anything to do with a neighbor a senior citizen it could be your spouse it doesn't matter what the emergency is for sometimes there's a reason you need to go over 20 miles an hour and by this the way this law is

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I rise to speak to this bill. You know, SB 35's goal is for safer roads, and it's one we all share. But the way we get there raises some serious concerns. To start off, it's going to hit the wrong people the hardest. Higher fines is going to double points in penalties, and it's going to fall hardest on rural and working-class Coloradans who have no alternative but to drive. Welch-year drivers can absorb a fine. A rural worker loses their license and their livelihood if a bill like this was to pass. The point penalties make that worse. Eight points for one infraction is too steep. Imagine that you were a teenager. You only get about eight points on your first license. So you speed and you get this violation. Immediately, you would lose your license, basically. And then think about the insurance costs if you were able to try to get new insurance. It would fall very hard on working-class families and just people who may need a driver's license in order to make a living. So for one infraction, eight points, this increase for improper passing means a single split-second decision can trigger license suspension, and that is simply not proportionate. Beyond the penalties themselves, we look at the mandatory minimums to remove judicial common sense. When judges cannot weigh the circumstances of a violation, the law becomes a blunt instrument, not a tool of justice. The hazmat provisions raise similar concerns Imposing penalties of $500 and up to $1,000 for repeat offenses. This could really put a lot of burdens on the small trucking business without evidence that current fines have failed. Even if the penalties were right, the enforcement infrastructure isn't there. Escalating penalties only deter if violations are tracked consistently across counties and state lines. and this bill does not ensure that that capacity exists currently in Colorado. The goal is right, but the bill will not accomplish it in the right way.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, one thing about the last amendment was it was a bit too specific. And we definitely want to make sure that our first responders, who are definitely responding, whether it's to a fire, a car crash, any other emergency, like a search and rescue type emergency, where time is of the essence, particularly in rural Colorado, where that individual who's trained may not be in their specific vehicle at that moment in time, but they are in the right location to respond, are able to respond. And that's why I move Amendment L018 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, members, let me read this. So, a first responder en route to an emergency is exempt from the penalties and points assessed for this section. Because we have many in rural Colorado who, you know, it's a long ways away from wherever an emergency may be taking place, whether it's a fire, search and rescue crash. There's many different scenarios that play out. I appreciate what was said about the sticker. But that individual who's specifically trained may not be in that particular automobile at that particular time, and we want to make sure that they have a very clear mechanism to be able to show the courts why they were in excessive speed, that there was an emergency, that they are a first responder, that they are part of the rescue that's taking place. And that's why having this specific provision here is critical, and we would ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleague for running this amendment. Just to point out, in Colorado, volunteer emergency first responders driving personal vehicles, which, God forbid they do that, generally cannot speed or cross double yellow lines, as they are subject to standard traffic laws and do not have the same privileges as a marked emergency vehicle with a siren. So what does that mean? That means you can take a volunteer firefighter who are at a family birthday party with their wife's car, and there a fire or there an emergency and that volunteer firefighter who took an oath to save lives could be hindered from doing so because of this law Volunteer firefighters are no less important as a regular firefighter. They take their job very seriously, and if they actually lost someone because they couldn't get to the emergency in time. And that's why it's called an emergency. This is not giving them a full blanket, do whatever you want, whenever you want. This is for emergency special situations. By allowing them to do that, which is what this amendment does, it will save lives in Colorado. This amendment also says that if someone needs to get to an emergency, volunteer firefighter or not, if they have a health emergency, they have something that's going on, their child is dying, choking, wife's having a baby, whatever it is, then they're exempt for being penalized for helping and saving their own family member. I urge, I urge a yes vote on this amendment. because it will save lives and it makes sense. Representative Clifford.

We will go into a brief recess. The House will come back to order.

The question before us is the adoption of L18. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed no. The no's have it. L18 fails. To the bill, Representative Clifford.

Representative Luck Thank you Madam Chair I am just rising in support of the changes that have been made and this conversation related to improper passing. I represent five counties, three in full and two partial, and four of my counties regularly you will see this kind of behavior. and regularly you will have impacts. And so I appreciate the attempt to try to increase the penalty, diminish the behavior, hopefully save lives, and make our roads safer. Thank you to the bill's sponsor. Representative Richardson.

vote on this bill. Further discussion on Senate Bill 35? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 35 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 35 as amended passes. Business report. Yes. Yes.

Representative Froehlich. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1273 in the Business Committee report. and the Appropriations Committee report.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In appropriations, it was determined that we are at negative $6,000, so you're welcome, Colorado, and we were voted through. So we asked for a yes on the Appropriations Committee report.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In Business Committee, we had a lively discussion, and we heard from a lot of drivers and blew the minds of the committee and passed the bill out of business and labor, and we asked for a yes vote on the Business Affairs and Labor Committee report.

To the bill, Representative Froelich. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to take a moment to contextualize this bill. When we started working on rideshare safety, we included the drivers in our conversations, and that is actually the genesis of this bill. I understand the reluctance to interfere in corporate matters, but when the pendulum swings so dramatically, we feel a correction is warranted. When most drivers signed up for the app, there was an agreement that the fares would be split 70-30. Now it is not uncommon for a driver's share to dip below 50%. And let's consider what the drivers are responsible. Of course, their car, the car maintenance, and this is what is absolutely causing desperation among the drivers, the huge spike in oil prices. They are responsible for every drop of gasoline that goes into their vehicle. They are responsible for insurance. And we heard in testimony that they are responsible after an accident for the deductible, even when they're driving on behalf of Uber. And remember, Uber doesn't consider itself a transportation company. It is an app. And it is an app that made $10 billion last year. That's billion with a B, an increase from 24. And I had my good friend in the back row do the calculations. If you make $100,000 a year, you would have to work 10,000 years to make $1 billion. And so we ask for a yes vote. In 2022, Uber severed driver's earnings from what riders pay, and that's when things really started going south for drivers. Folks appreciate the flexibility like the extra income But at this point as we mentioned before the pendulum has really swung into exploitation and we asked for a yes vote on the bill

Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be quick because I know the hour is late. We heard this on the 11th of March when we still had a whole lot of time ahead of us, and I'm glad I took notes because, frankly, I don't remember what we did at 11 o'clock this morning. I have not seen an industry in this state targeted so heavily since oil and gas, coal and agriculture, but apparently we've moved on to ride shares. Asking folks to be paid more feels good. Wanting to be paid more is absolutely understandable. But if you look at the numbers, there was a lot of numbers quoted and thrown around during that hearing. One was that one of these larger ride shares had made $10 billion, so obviously they can give a lot more money to their drivers. What wasn't discussed there was that was about $9.7 billion net on $52 billion gross. That company is only making 18% to start with, so I don't know where they get another, in this case doubling their driver's pay, is going to put them into the red. And they're not going to go there. they're either going to go away or they're going to change their model. And we are going to lose the folks that are providing drunks a safe ride home, our folks that are disabled and blind, the ability to actually live a productive life. And we can say that this isn't going to drive them away, that everybody says when we change these rules the industry is going to go away. Well, industries are going away. and throwing more burden on the back of a company that has been operating fairly and hasn't been pulling their drivers off the street at gunpoint, but they've been contracting willingly to do this job. We had folks that testified quite a bit. We heard from a lot of people, a lot of drivers, many of them that have worked for these companies for over a decade complaining that they're not treated fairly. but yet they continue to work for them So truly I think it just drew out a whole lot of drivers that just want to get paid for for what they do And again I don blame them for wanting more but they should not be using the power of this legislature to override good business-making or good decision-making by the businesses that employ them. I am a no vote on this.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Uber and Lyft want us to believe that they are simply technology platforms that connect riders and drivers and that they implement safety measures. But that story starts to fall apart as soon as you follow the money. We heard from drivers and committee that when Uber first launched and drivers signed up, they kept 90% of the fare and the company took 10%. Because at that time, even Uber understood something very basic. The driver was carrying almost all of the cost and almost all of the risk. The driver buys, leases, owns, or rents the car. The driver pays for gas. The driver pays for insurance. The driver pays for tires, brakes, maintenance, and repairs. The driver absorbs the depreciation of the vehicle. The driver pays for the cell phone, for the cell phone contract. But then the business model changed in 2022. and Uber and Lyft introduced what they call upfront pricing and that was a turning point. From that moment on, there was no longer a fixed commission or transparent service fee and instead the companies began using algorithms to separately determine what riders would pay and what drivers would earn. Passengers paying more while drivers were earning less. That is not an option. That is not a hypothesis. That is exactly what the data shows. Platform fees surged more than 33% in a single year, while driver pay barely moved. Uber and Lyft now take around 40% on average from fares and sometimes as much as 65% or 70% on individual rides. One rider paid more than $72 for a ride, while the driver received just $24. Another passenger paid nearly $49, while the driver got just $15.96. sense. The person doing the work is receiving a fraction of the fare, while the corporation behind the app takes the majority. And the consequences of this business model are showing up everywhere. Drivers report staying on the road exhausted because they cannot afford to stop driving. Drivers report working in pain because the pay is so unpredictable. Drivers report accepting rides they believe may be unsafe because they're trying to hit bonuses or avoid being pushed by the algorithm. So yes, this conversation is about wages, but it's also about safety, because when companies keep squeezing workers harder and harder in pursuit of higher profits, safety does not stay in touch. It becomes part of the trade-off. That is exactly, members, why we brought this bill. We ask for an aye vote. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 114. Senate Bill 114 by Senators Marchman and Bright, also representatives to Tone and Soper, concerning aspiratorious liquor manufacturers' sales rooms.

To the bill.

and then they have to drink water, and they don't feel comfortable being there because they don't fit in, because the distillery cannot sell anything else except for the products that they have. And that's what Senate Bill 114 is about. This is a bill from last year. We've improved it since then. and it's a balanced, locally driven approach to support the Colorado distillers while strengthening community oversight and protections. Across the state, distillers are facing real economic pressures, limited access to retail markets, higher effective tax burdens compared to beer and wine, and few opportunities to reach customers directly. Many of these are locally owned businesses that contribute to our main streets, our tourism economy, and our local communities. This bill takes a measured approach to help them adapt without changing the footprint of where they operate, and it doesn't expand the number of sales rooms that the distiller may have under law. Instead, this creates a limited optional permit that allows the distiller and its existing licensed premises or approved sales room to serve a capped amount of alcoholic beverages purchased through licensed wholesalers and only on-premise consumption. but you know most importantly about this bill it's where it's evolved from last year last year we had concerns about local government and not having strong enough role in the process but we heard the feedback and we've adapted that by putting local governments at the front end of the decision making process so before the state could even take issue the permit the applicant must first obtain approval from the local licensing authority this is a really great bill It's going to be great for your local distilleries in your district. And, you know, this is a meaningful shift from what we had last year. It provides a modest, responsible tool to help small manufacturers remain viable while ensuring that local communities retain control over what happens with their boundaries. Before you get to it, Representative Soper, how do you say the word in the title of your bill? Concerning a... Spirituous? Spirituous. Spirituous? It has nothing to do with dead people. Okay, to the bill, Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, it's too late for big words. It's too late for big words. Members, this bill supports small business, protects communities, and keeps decisions where they belong at the local level with the local government. If we want to keep our local distilleries around and robust as local manufacturers, employers, areas that attract tourists, contributing to the economy, this bill is a step in the right direction, and we would respectfully ask for a yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 114. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. Senate Bill 114 is passed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1138. House Bill 1138 by Representatives Woog and Espinoza concerning measures to prevent organized retail theft and in connection therewith, creating the Retail Theft Prevention Advisory Board and the Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program in the Office of the House Bill 1138. The Attorney General. Representative Espinosa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 261138 and the Appropriations and Judiciary Report. To the Appropriations Report. Representative Espinosa. Thank you. In Judiciary, we provided an amendment which moved the program from the Department of Law to the Department of Public Safety and reduced our appropriation to an amount that was much less than we originally requested, but one that was funded by the Department of Public Safety gifts and grants that they have available. And we'd ask for a passage of the Appropriations Committee report. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of the Appropriations Committee report. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. The Appropriations Committee report is passed. To the Judiciary Committee report, Representative Espinosa. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Judiciary Report, we changed the composition of the Task Force Committee, adding a District Attorney, the Director of Criminal Justice, and one public defender to the Task Force to work on this program. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of the Judiciary Committee Report. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. The Judiciary Report is passed. To the bill. Representative Wook. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the House, I am pleased to bring House Bill 261138 forward today with my colleague, Representative Espinoza. Retail theft in Colorado hit a decade high in 2024, with 27,094 reported shoplifting incidents, a 22.4% jump in a single year. With roughly 89% of retail theft going unreported, the true number is closer to 246,000 incidents statewide. Now, this isn't just a problem for retailers. Colorado lost an estimated $78 million in sales tax revenue in 2022 alone. Combined retailer losses, including return fraud, exceeded $2.69 billion. The Common Sense Institute projects sustained losses at this level would cost the state more than 8,000 jobs in 2026 alone. When retail theft goes down, taxable sales go back up. Reducing this crime is one of the few public safety investments that pays the state back directly through recovered sales tax revenue. We have done this before, and it has worked. Colorado auto theft has fallen 41% from its 2022 peak through the CATPA model, a coordinated, grant-funded approach housed in the Department of Public Safety. CATPA estimates approximately $121 million in losses avoided in 2024 alone. House Bill 1138 applies that same proven structure to retail theft. It creates a retail theft prevention advisory board and a retail theft prevention grant program in the Division of Criminal Justice within the DPS. Grants will fund what law enforcement actually needs, investigations and prosecutions of organized retail theft and gift card fraud, technology and analytics tools, training and prevention initiatives. Grants are statutorily limited to investigating and addressing organized felony level retail theft and gift card fraud the coordinated criminal activity not opportunistic shoplifting Data collection by the board is statutorily focused on theft trends losses prosecutions and outcomes not on consumer behavior The advisory board brings together law enforcement, prosecutors, the public defender, local government, and retailers themselves, including dedicated non-voting seats for a large retailer, a small retailer, and a non-profit retailer. The people closest to the problem will help build the response. The Department of Public Safety will report annually beginning January 2028 on grants awarded, performance metrics, cases initiated, and case outcomes. The program sunsets on November 1st, 2029, giving this body a clear opportunity to review what is working and what is not. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on House Bill 26-1138. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Espinosa. Thank you. And I just wanted to talk about the history. We started this program, or thought we'd have this program originally in the Department of Law. But as it turned out, the Department of Law's focus and attention in this area is not on the kind of work that we need to have done. That's when we move the program to the Department of Public Safety, and it will be housed within the Division of Criminal Justice. The Division of Criminal Justice is Colorado's established home for criminal justice grant administration. Locating the retail theft prevention grant program within DCJ avoids the duplication of resources, eliminates redundant overhead, and ensures that every dollar appropriated reaches frontline enforcement and prevention rather than being absorbed by the cost of building a new administrative capacity. I would note this came to me because, as many of you probably have experienced, you've gone into stores, especially those who live around the Capitol now for the session, And you see that things are locked behind cases because there's a lot of theft that's going on. Although we're not targeting that level of theft, we are targeting another area of theft that has been brought to the Judiciary Committee's attention for several years, and that is the theft of gift cards and other issues of theft that result in a double loss for retailers, resulting in consumer losses and us paying higher prices. That is, when a retailer faces a loss of someone stealing information, stealing an item, they pay for that loss in terms of their loss prevention. They may have some ideas for that, but they lose again when the people then bring the same property back to the stores and create a secondary loss for retailers. It is the concern that many of our stores are having to close because of this organized retail theft that we have to bring together this task force in order to address the multi-jurisdictional issues that remain in this area. We hope that you will support this program. It is a pilot. If it demonstrates to be fruitful, we will, of course, be asking for expansion, but at this time we believe it's a reasonable and tailored approach to address this persistent problem which exists across all of our jurisdictions. Please vote yes. Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I rise in support to this bill. I think this is a bill, this is a step in the right direction. I will say I am kind of reminded of a bill last year that was brought forward by a colleague of mine, unfortunately was killed. But I do think that we should emphasize, yeah, I think we should emphasize the importance of crime prevention retail theft. It's very important, I think, in the state when we're facing over $2 billion worth of theft across the state. And I think it's something that we have to address here, you know, crime prevention, everything that we are focusing on in the state. So I would just want to say, please support this bill. And I really think that we need to continue discussions going forward on this because crime theft retail theft is an issue I hear about in my district all the time And I think we need to work on making sure we put bad people away especially habitual offenders and I think over the amount of the thresholds for the merchandise that sold it very important to protect our small businesses in our community especially because when we seeing prices go on the rise it is also important to make sure we protect their inventory so I encourage and I vote on this bill Thank you. Representative Bradley. thank you madam chair and i ran a bill like this last year included gift card theft because it is rising crimes rings of criminals coming to colorado you know what stops retail theft in colorado is putting criminals in jail that steal from our businesses so they don't have to lock things up so they don't have to lock up alcohol so they don't have to lock up makeup so they don't to lock up their retail. Not an advisory board, but locking up the actual criminals and creating a felony penalty system so they don't come to Colorado and create these retail theft rings, actually put the people in jail. Great first step. Maybe next year we can be a little more serious. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1138, AML Winter? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the bill sponsors for bringing this bill. I appreciate all the work you've done on this. And I know that it's hard in this building to get some things out, but at least this is a start and glad you drove a stake in the ground and got to work on this. So thank you. Seeing no further discussion. The question for us is the passage of House Bill 1138. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. House Bill 1138 is passed. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report. Seeing no objection, the committee will rise and report. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole. Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs the report is under consideration. The following attached bills being the second reading that I've ever met makes the following recommendations are on. House Bill 1138 is amended, 1273 is amended, 1274 is amended, 1424 is amended, and 1432 is amended. Passed on second reading, order gross in place on the calendar for third reading, final passage. Senate Bill 35 is amended, 42 is amended, 114, 115 is amended, 116, 117, 133 is amended, 135 is amended, 145, 156, 167, 173, 181, and 189. Pass on second reading. Order and gross in place on the calendar for third reading and final passage. Well done. AML Bacon. Members, you have heard the motion. We do have amendments at the desk. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Kelty Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report. Representative Kelty moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to risk the action taken by the committee and not adopting the following SOPR Amendment, L18 to Senate Bill 35. To show that said amendment passed, that Senate Bill 35 is amended passed. Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Kelty Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask for it to be displayed. Thank you. One moment. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Earlier we had discussed this bill, and it was about putting more criminality. It was about putting doubling points for someone who is driving 20 miles an hour over or possibly having to cross a double line for any purpose, including even an emergency situation. So I ran this amendment saying and putting to the bill that a first responder in route to emergency is exempt from penalties and points assessed for violating a section. For our first responders in the line of duty, even when they're not driving a vehicle that is licensed or, I should say licensed, isn't approved for that specific nature, whether it's a volunteer firefighter or any type of emergency, situation that they could find themselves in, you have a volunteer firefighter that is far away and they get called in an emergency and they don't have to have that one particular vehicle with them, they have their wife's vehicle or their husband's vehicle or whoever it is, they will be exempt from getting the assessed points if they're on their way to an emergency situation where they have to save a life. And I ask for a yes vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Kelty Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? No. Representative Morrow votes no. Joseph is excused. Please close the machine. With 28 I, 35 no, and 2 excused, the amendment is lost. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report. Representative Johnson moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following Richardson Amendment, L13 to Senate Bill 42, to show that said amendment passed and that Senate Bill 42 is amended past. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask that it be properly displayed. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Okay, colleagues, now that we are out here all together, I want to make sure that we are making sure we bring in the people, the taxpayers. This bill, Senate Bill 042, does adjustments to the Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights. So when we're talking about the taxpayers, let's bring them to the table, directly hear from them, and refer this to the people under referendum so we hear what they want. I urge a yes vote for the people. Seeing no... Yes. Representative Sirota. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask for a no vote. The bill is not making changes to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The bill is clarifying definitions of damages and collections for another government. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? No. Representative Morrow votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine Whoop Joseph Please close the machine With 22 aye, 42 no, and one excuse, the amendment is lost. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Flannell amendment to the Committee of the Whole report. Representative Flannell, move to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the committee and not adopting the following SOPR amendment, L-17 to Senate Bill 115, to show that Senate Amendment passed and that Senate Bill 115 has amended passed. Representative Flannell. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment is pretty clear. It just exempts domestic violence offenders from being able to petition. I think... Sorry. I did not check. It's okay, it's late. Sorry. Representative, could you please repeat the motion? So I move amendment 001. No, the flannel amendment. I move the flannel amendment and ask that it be displayed. Sorry. To the committee of a whole. Thank you. Now please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Okay, so as I was saying, with this bill, It basically, it just exempts domestic violence offenders from being able to petition on for early release. We talk a lot about domestic violence in this building and hear from a lot of domestic violence victims, especially in Judiciary Committee. And I think that this amendment upholds our responsibility to victims. And so I ask for an aye vote. AML Bacon. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to our colleague. We're going to respectfully ask for a no vote as the underlying charges are taken into consideration by the judge in addition to the other characteristics that it should evaluate. So with that, members, again, we respectfully ask for a no vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Flannell Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? No. Representative Morrow votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 27 I, 37 no, and one excuse, the amendment is lost. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Representative Luck moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to risk the action taken by the committee and not adopting the following Luck Amendment, L34 to Senate Bill 135, to show that said amendment passed, that Senate Bill 135 is amended passed. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. For those of you who are in here, this is a very special conversation related to very special amendments. This is the best amendment in terms of the conversation that we had, in part because it was an amendment drafted by our very own state title board. So if you were in here you will recall that this particular bill Senate Bill 135 when it was introduced was taken by an organization and community and brought before the title board to be presented as an initiative through the citizen initiative process. And when the title board was reviewing the language, they found that the question at the end did not clearly state the actual provisions of the bill and that it did not satisfy all of the requirements needed to make it clear to the voters what to decide on. And so they rewrote that question that is currently the question in the Senate bill before you in order to reflect this language. And if it is the language that the citizens would have to put forward, I believe that it should be the language that we as a General Assembly should also have to put forward. What's fair is fair. And we have had a number of conversations in this building this year about the disparity. Representative Luck, one moment. We are voting. I will ask everyone to keep their voices down. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have had a number of conversations about the disparity between the way citizens' initiatives are processed and the way that referred measures are done. And so in order to instill confidence in our citizenry and show that there is not indeed a double standard, I ask for an aye vote. Representative Lukens. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment. One, it does not match the language of what is now currently in the bill. And then in addition to that, our ballot measure language has passed the single subject rule and has been approved by the title board. So we ask for a no vote on this amendment. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the luck amendment to the committee of the whole report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? No. Representative Morrow votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. with 21 I 43 no and 1 excused the amendment is lost Mr. Schiebel please read the Richardson amendment to the committee of the whole report Representative Richardson move to amend the port of the committee of the whole to reverse the action taken by the committee and not adopting the following Richardson amendment L31 to Senate Bill 135 to show that Senate Bill 135 is amended past. Representative Richardson Thank you Madam Speaker I move the Richardson amendment to the report to the committee of the whole and ask that it magically appear before us yes there we go all righty I did vote for the last amendment but I'm not disappointed that it failed because I I have a better version to present yeah I tried to triple stamp a double stamp earlier and that did not work out well So, I do have issues with the question to be presented to the voters that is in the bill. If you want to follow along, we're in the re-engrossed version on page 19. So, good to see everyone. I do believe that the question in the bill needs to be revised. and we know it needs to be revised because the title board has told us that there were issues with the original language that in the bill And I appreciate the work the title board did but I didn think they quite hit the mark The issue that I have with the current language is that it promises things that this body cannot make true the question that is going to go to the voters talks about these investments this extra revenue that would come in being used to increase torture pay improve retention lower class sizes but the state doesn't set teacher pay so we can't promise through a ballot question that this will raise teacher pay. That's done by local boards. We certainly can't force teachers to stay in the districts where they're at or not leave the profession. We cannot from this room affect teacher retention or make a promise that retention will be higher. And we certainly don't designate how many teachers an individual district hires, so we can't make any promises about class sizes. so to put that question before the voters with those elements in it it's well-meaning and it's hopeful I won't say it's deceptive but I just think it's incorrect so those those elements of the original question have to come out and And we have what I think is just an issue of vagueness. Thinking back to your time in school, is there anybody here that enjoyed math word problems? Okay, a few, but I think you're going to vote for this anyway. Most people don't like math word problems. Well, there's a few more over here. Okay. But when you're sitting at the kitchen table with your ballot and looking through language that talks about things like raising the annual limit on state fiscal year spending only by the amount spent on public K-12 education. There's nothing that tells you how much that amount is. That amount is approximately $4.6 billion. We should probably just tell them straight up front that's what we're trying to increase the retention from the state to. It talks about increasing 2% each year for the next 10 years, the amount that we give to K-12, but again, what's that 2%? So I think telling folks directly that that's about $107 million is the right thing to do. And then what can we do with the residual, and what is that residual? about $4.3 billion that then we're letting the people know that that's the amount up to that this legislature can direct to things that aren't specific K-12. Everything in this bill is mutable after that. The money comes in. Anything not going directly to K-12 certainly can be amended and used elsewise. I think this is just a much cleaner question. It tells people what happens in that first year, and that's usually the requirement in a TABOR question, is how much revenue is raised, what it's going to be spent on. And this amendment does that. What this amendment doesn't do, and I wish it did, but that wasn't the one that I brought forward initially, was to tell people that where we have a Tabor Cap right now, $19.2 billion. This raises that in one year by almost 24%. It's too much in one year, but this is a very accurate and very descriptive and very simple ballot question that I think everybody could understand. It's consistent with what's in the bill, and I urge a yes vote. Assistant Majority Leader Bacon. I'm too tired from my... Members, thank you. We're going to ask for a no vote. The conversation we had on the floor was about, quite frankly, kind of codifying in some of these projections with these numbers. So for what it's worth, I don't think there's anything wrong with a little hope. Like I hoped we would be done by 10 o'clock. And so I really appreciate that, but we're going to respectfully ask for a no vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Richardson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? No. Representative Morrow votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine With 22 ayes 42 no and 1 excused the amendment is lost The motion before us is the adoption of the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Morrow, how do you vote?

Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Ryden and Woodrow?

Woodrow and Ryden, I think that's like what?

How many days do we have left?

Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no and one excuse, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Oh I have some business to do too Announcements first Representative Brown.

Mr. Sheba, let's do some announcements here. Message from the Senate.

Introduction of bills.

Senate Bill 178 will be assigned to the Committee on Appropriations.

Senate Bill 185 will be assigned to the Committee on State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs.

Now, Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar is laid over until tomorrow. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the House is adjourned until tomorrow at 9 a.m.