House Transportation, Housing & Local Government [Mar 10, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Mr. Gravy, please call the roll.

Excuse.

Present.

Present.

Here.

Joycely here.

Here.

Yes.

Here.

Here.

Excuse.

Excuse. VICE CHAIR STEWART PRESENT MADAM CHAIR WELCOME REPRESENTATIVE SMITH PLEASE TELL US ABOUT 1237. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. I'm happy to be partnering up with Representative Taggart on House Bill 1237, Transportation Safety Modifications. Last year, Rep. Taggart and I ran an e-bike safety bill, and I'm proud to be running yet another safety bill, some of it having to do with biking, but it's, as you see from the sheet that I gave you, that it's got several different sections, so I'll just go through this. This bill is a bipartisan package of targeted transportation safety improvements developed through collaboration between AAA, Bicycle Colorado, CDOT, and the White Line Foundation. The bill is also supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, and Colorado Counties Incorporated. It addresses four distinct issues through straightforward statutory classifications. No new regulatory frameworks, no new penalties, no fiscal impact. First is updating accident to crash. The bill updates statutory references from accident to crash across multiple titles of Colorado revised statutes. The word accident implies inevitability or lack of fault. Crash is a neutral, accurate term used by the NHTSA, the National Transportation Safety Board, and most state DOTs, Department of Transportation. Crash accounts for both preventable and unavoidable incidents. Many federal transportation agencies adopted this terminology decades ago, encouraging the use of crash, collision, or incident instead of accident, because the latter implies an unavoidable event, while most roadway crashes involve identifiable and preventable factors such as speeding, impairment, distraction, and roadway design. Next, we have clarification of the traction law for two-wheel vehicles. Section 1 of this bill amends CRS 42-4-106 to simplify traction device requirement. Current law creates confusion by listing separate compliance standards for four-wheel, all-wheel drive vehicles versus other vehicles. In practice, the requirement is the same, proper tires or chains The bill removes redundant four all drive language so the statute reads clearly When the traction law is in effect all vehicles must have tire chains or tires with adequate tread depth and a mountain snowflake on all weather rating tires. This simplification makes it easier for CDOT to communicate compliance requirements to the driving public during winter weather events, such as when they put the signs that are flashing, chains required. No change in enforcement, no new obligations, just clear language. The next section is prohibiting parking and bike lanes. Section 2 of the bill adds bike lanes to the list of locations where stopping, standing, or parking is prohibited under CRS 42-4-1204. When a vehicle parks in a bike lane, cyclists are forced to merge into motor vehicle traffic, often without warning to either cyclists or approaching drivers. This is a well-documented cause of serious injury and fatality crashes involving vulnerable road users. This provision closes a gap in existing law. Crosswalks, sidewalks, and intersections are already designated as no parking zones. Bike lanes should receive the same treatment. The prohibition includes a reasonable exception. A vehicle may briefly enter a bike lane when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or when directed by a police officer or traffic control device. And I can speak to this myself because the other weekend I was driving back on North Broadway, which is the main thoroughfare for bikers to get onto Highway 36, and they've redone the road so that there's very large bike lanes, and a cyber truck was blocking completely the bike lane. It was parked there, and I'm sure they were just going across the street to get coffee at Amante. So, again, this is a major thoroughfare on the weekend when bikers are biking out onto Highway 36 and such. The last section is enabling CDOT to move abandoned vehicles. section 3 of the bill amends CRS 42-4-1803 to expand the conditions under which CDOT can move abandoned vehicles from the highway right of way. Current law only authorizes removal when a vehicle obstructs traffic or highway maintenance. The bill adds or impedes traffic, highway maintenance, or operations. This matters because abandoned vehicles in the right-of-way that don't fully block a lane still create hazards. They narrow sight lines, force lane changes, and complicate incident response. This provision is narrowly scoped to state highways and CDOT operations. It does not affect recent legislative protections against predatory private towing. It does not change the process. CDOT employees must still must obtain law enforcement approval before moving a vehicle. And at that point, those are the four sections of the bill, and I'm happy to take questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. CDOT will be able to answer that definitively, but I do know, for instance, law enforcement, State Patrol, they have crash reports, and they use the term crash. As I said earlier, it aligns with the national transportation safety and so forth. So I don't know about the courts, so they would have to answer that. I do not see any additional questions so we'll move to witnesses and we have enough so that you have to move too we will bring up we might be able to do everyone I think Emily Hadaway, Michael Raber, Jacqueline Claudia and Jocelyn Reimer in person and then Peter we can't decide whether it's Piccolo or Piccolo. But we welcome you back to committee and Skylar McKinney. Hopefully you're both able to join us online. And I see Ms. Hadaway ready to go and we're doing three minutes today. Please proceed.

this bill. Thank you and Ms. Claudia? Oh no, we'll go Ms. Reimer. Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair and members of the committee, thank you so much for this opportunity to speak today. My name is Jocelyn Reimer and I'm the Director of Victim Services for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I'm the victim advocate who works with loved ones who have been killed, sorry, and work with families whose loved ones have been killed by impaired drivers. I'm here today in strong support of House Bill 26, 1237.

Ms. Claudia, please proceed.

Michael Raber I'm representing bike Jeff go the bicycle advocacy group out of Jefferson County but we work with advocacy groups all over the state and I here to support the the bill in total but particularly with reference to the bicycle shoulders and the challenge with the bicycle shoulders is when a vehicle is there it forces a cyclist to if they can't see them because of obstacles at the cars bicyclists in front of them to run into the back of the vehicle or worst is when you try to go around the vehicle because Two things happen when that occurs. One is you run the chance of being run into from behind by a motor vehicle that is attempting to pass you in a very narrow space. Or even worse is somebody gets out of that vehicle, opens their door, and you have a collision with the door. And you can talk to anybody who has worked on medical care for accidents, and they would tell you that one of the worst possible damages and collisions to an individual is a bicyclist who has run into the door of a car when somebody unexpectedly opened the door when they were passing. And for that reason, we very much support this, not only the idea, but the legislation to make parking in a bike lane an offense that can be towed or ticketed ticketed because people understand towing and ticketing. The other thing I wanted to mention is that because this addresses bike lanes, I would like to say it expanded with your support to include where a bike lane either comes in from a safety shoulder or goes into a safety shoulder because they're a little bit different. A bike lane is a designated bike lane bikeway, But in many cases, most cases, a bike lane is either before you enter it or as you leave it is a safety shoulder. And where that particularly comes into effect is on your county roads and your remote roads. For instance, Highway 103, when it starts up what used to be Squall Pass, it's Miss Tahiti Outpass now, it starts out as a county road with no safety shoulder. it goes into Clear Creek County a mile up the road, which has a full five-foot bike lane, designated bike lane. And then from there, it goes up seven miles, and it goes into CDOT territory, which is just a safety shoulder. I know I just have half a minute here, but if you would consider for the purposes of enforcement and for the clarity for bicyclists that safety shoulders adjacent or connecting to a bike lane also be considered a bike lane for the purposes of enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Thank you to the sponsors for bringing this bill today. My name is Kevin McKinley. I'm here on behalf of AAA and our 750,000 Colorado members. We're the state's largest membership organization and the nation's leading traffic safety advocate. I'm also joining you here from the Oak Creek Fire Protection District. I'm sorry I can't be there in person. I would say as a function of my various roles, I think a lot about how to save lives. And for governments like the room that I'm in and the room that you're in, money can help. It is no secret that there's not a lot of money for governments right now in the state of Colorado. And that's what excites me about the bill. Changing the word accident to crash may seem like a small thing, but it does matter and it costs nothing. The reason being that the language that we use to describe things shapes the value judgments that we make about acceptable behavior. And as a result, how we behave. So when we call a crash an accident, we imply that these tragedies are inevitable, that they're beyond human influence or control. After all accidents happen When it comes to car crashes that not true Federal research attributes 94 of all crashes to something involving driver error The tens of thousands of people who die on American roads each year would still be here if drivers made different choices And I appreciate that this may sound pedantic, but there's some data. Academic research has found that the word accident shifts blame onto victims and prevents people from treating these deaths as the preventable public health crisis that they are. The same research concludes that removing accident from our lexicon has, quote, the potential to save human lives and prevent injury on a large scale. That's significant given that road crashes are a leading cause of death for Americans aged one through 54. NHTSA stopped using accident in official communications in 1997. Nevada changed every statutory reference from accident to crash in 2016. New York City dropped the word in 2014. The AP Stylebook tells journalists to avoid it because it can read as exonerating the person responsible. When a plane crashes, we don't call it an accident because we demand answers. We demand that it doesn't happen again. It's not a plane accident. It's a plane crash. This bill asks Colorado to hold car crashes to the same standards. Accidents happen. Crashes don't have to. Good bill. Vote yes. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Piccolo. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name

Thank you so much. Committee, we have four people in person and two people online for questions. I do not see questions, so we thank you very much for being here. Thank you for joining us. We will make one last call for anyone in the room who wishes to speak on House Bill 1237. Seeing none, the witness phase is complete. bill sponsor. We have an amendment before us. We'll have, we'll move it while you're getting settled and then you can tell us about it. Vice Chair Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-001 to House Bill 1237. I second this motion. Seconded by Representative Nguyen. Tell us about Amendment 1. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is interesting because evidently if House Bill 26-1127 passes, there's going to be a conflict in the statute. So this is just a contingency. If it passes then essentially this one section needs to be out I believe But I would actually like the bill drafter to talk about it because it is unusual. Thank you, Madam Chair. Rebecca Byetti, Office of Legislative Legal Services, for the record.

Any questions about amendment number one? Any objections to amendment number one? Seeing none. Amendment one is adopted. Thank you, Ms. Baini. Additional amendments, Representative Smith. Any amendments, committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is complete. Wrap up, Representative Smith. Great. Well, as you heard, this is about safety. Every provision in this bill reflects the same principle. Existing laws should be clear, consistent, and aligned with how Colorado's transportation system actually works. There's a strong coalition behind it. And I will just say I live in Boulder, which is very much a bike community for commuting. I used to ride my bike every day to work, as did my husband. We've got a lot of bike racers and so forth. And unfortunately, we have way too many white bikes in Boulder where bikers have been killed. And I know I have Mr. White behind me driving down 119. You know, every time I drive there, I think of Magnus White and what happened to him. and the white family are actually constituents of mine. So I urge you to vote yes for House Bill 26-1237. Thank you. Rep Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1239 as amended to the Committee of the Whole. Second. I'm so sorry. I withdraw my motion. You withdraw your second. Can I just make it again? Okay. I move House Bill 1237 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Second. And seconded by Representative Phillips. Committee, comments before voting? Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. I have initially, you know, some concerns about expansion of regulatory verbiage or potential of expansion of regulatory nature of any type and worry about, you know, some of the downstream effects of changing language. It seems easy on our side and understand the intent, but then on the court side. However, yeah, this is, there's obviously precedent, something that other court systems, other jurisdictions, other law enforcement agencies have been able to manage through still might have some questions about it as we go along, but I'm yes for today. Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just since I seconded the motion, I just wanted to weigh in on, I also had my teenage nephew was killed in a car crash. And so I love this change to car crash. So thank you for bringing the bill. And I will just say, Thank you very much for bringing the bill, and thank you to the white family and other families who translate their personal tragedies into action to save others and to make others not have to experience what they experience. So I will be very proud. Yes, Mr. Gravy, please call the roll. Representatives, Basenecker, excuse, Brooks. Yes. Jackson.

Yes. Gwynn. Yes. Pascal. Yes. Phillips. Yes. Richardson. Yes. Sucla. Yeah. Velasco is excused. Weinberg. Yes. Vice Chair Stewart. Yes. Madam Chair. Yes. That is unanimous. You are on your way to the cow. Congratulations. Next. We're doing repel delivery fee. County enforcement. We're doing delivery fees. Delivery fees. Okay. Delivery fees. Representative Woog. Thank you. Welcome back to the best committee. Thank you. Please tell us about 1266. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. I miss you guys. 1266. This is a repeal of delivery fees. The Colorado retail delivery fee is a 28 cents per delivery applied to motor vehicle deliveries of taxable, tangible goods and is passed directly to consumers, making it a regressive charge that disproportionately burdens those who rely on deliveries for essentials. It's effectively an added tax on online and delivery orders, raising costs for everyday items like groceries, medications, and household supplies. People that are hardest hit from this delivery fee, low-income households and working families, the fee acts as a regressive tax with a financial burden six and a half times higher for households earning under annually compared to those over For essentials it can inflate costs significantly For example a 3 increase on an turkey sandwich delivery or a 2 on disinfecting wipes Combined with state and local sales tax, this can mean up to 14.7% total tax on basic takeout in areas like Grand County. It also affects people with disabilities and mobility challenges disproportionately. those who can't easily shop in person rely heavily on deliveries, paying more fees despite lower average incomes. This includes immunocompromised individuals or those in food deserts who order groceries to avoid health risks. It also affects disproportionately the elderly and rural residents, seniors and those in remote areas like Eastern Plains often can't drive long distances, so they order online for everything from prescriptions to household items. some of the businesses that are hardest hit small local retailers and restaurants e-commerce and delivery drivers for instance as a fixed fee it represents a higher percentage on low value items hurting mom and pop shops like florists bakeries and eateries that sell affordable goods in 2023 the fee reduced restaurant takeout orders by over 400 000 costing 12.2 million in sales and 234 jobs. Small businesses often absorb or pass on the fee, losing customers to big chains. So I brought this bill back just because I feel strongly that Colorado residents are, many Colorado residents are struggling with a high cost of living. We've talked about that quite a bit in the Capitol building in the last few years. And this is just one way to, you know, repeal some fees that are hurting and slowly helping Colorado residents get some cash back in their own pocket and spend it the way they need to. So I urge support. Thank you. Thank you. So questions for Representative Woog, Representative Phillips? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Woog, for bringing the bill. Can you talk to us about the fiscal note? Representative Woog. Yep. One second, please. So I assume there is a loss of revenue on the fiscal note. And I don't know if you want numbers, Representative, but why don't I talk a little bit about that. So, yes, there's a loss in revenue. This fee does contribute to things. Well, I don't see the contribution. It's supposed to contribute to things like repairing roads and bridges. With the loss, I feel strongly that there's other items that we talked about, especially the Republican caucus members last year on the long bill. So I'm going to bring a couple of those things up. And if this is what you're getting at, I think there's some funds that really could take care of this lost revenue. Let me go into the funding sources first. So funding sources for these items that the delivery fee helps cover, there's already funding sources, vehicle registrations, fuel taxes, driver's license, renewal fee, oversized load permit fee, traffic penalties, general fund, fuel sales tax, federal funds, general fund, vehicle registrations, faster surcharge fee, central 70, conduit fee, federal funds and general fund, gifts, grants, donations, grants and incentives, TNC, clean fleet per ride fee, and general fund, oil and gas production fees, TNC clean fleet per ride fee and general fund. So those are some things that already contribute to these items that this fee helps contribute to Also another thing I want to point out is again the House Republicans fought hard to cut some spending and a lot of that we feel, or I feel, I should say, could go towards these items that are crucial that we take care of. So we argued to cut $34.5 million, which redirects funds from non-Medicaid reproductive and immigrant health benefits to rural providers. I won't read all these, don't worry, just some of the big ones. We argued to cut over $36 million to eliminate funding the state fleet vehicle replacements. We also argued to cut over $24 million to eliminate CMHIP kitchen replacement project. we argued to cut boy there's a lot $13 million for eliminates payroll modernization IT project as a whole $824 million were some cuts we argued to make that we did not receive so yes if that is what you're getting at representative that there is a loss of revenue the reality is I feel we need to take care of our residents that are already hurting and I do feel strongly very strongly that we can get the revenue source by reallocating funds from different areas if that answered your question thank you representative and then just to follow up on that so you feel that the roads are sufficiently funded and they can absorb this lack of revenue thank you madam chair um i don't see the roads getting repaired unfortunately our roads a lot of them are really bad um especially the ones I know it's in my district like Highway 52. So it doesn't even appear that these funds currently are going to the roads. I'm not sure where they're going. But we do need the funding for the roads, but I believe we can get that funding from other parts of the budget. I believe we can reallocate funds instead of this fee that's really imposing a tax on residents of Colorado. They're getting nickel and dime to death. It's death by 1,000 paper cuts, and people are hurting. And like I said, specifically, elderly, rural Coloradans, low-income families are getting hurt the most. So I feel that there are funds that can cover and pay for the roads. We certainly need our roads funded. Thank you. I don't see additional questions, so we'll move into testimony. We'll just do Kristen Hartman online as the first person. Is there anyone in the room in favor of 1266? If so, please come forward. Okay. Ms. Hartman?

If you could join us and say who you represent, if anyone, and please proceed.

And while only not only is that noticeable but it the Colorado next to it that is the most off Like Colorado is not supportive of its small business online sellers and even less appreciative of the shoppers who do buy from us For all the talk of supporting small business, the Colorado retail delivery fee penalizes Colorado-based online sellers and our customers. For example, the global online handicraft market, which I'm part of, was $805 billion last year and growing. Many of us crafter and artists want to be active members of our local economies to engage with our communities, but as individuals, we are outside the mainstream economic development checkboxes. Collectively, however, we should be capturing a larger share of that $805 billion handicrafts market. The Colorado retail delivery fee is one of many Colorado-specific laws that diminishes Colorado online sellers ability to compete with sellers in neighboring states. Colorado specific bills targeting online marketplaces sabotage grassroots economic development initiatives for home-based and rural Coloradans depriving us of an opportunity to be part of our state and local economies as connected community and with little if any avenue for stakeholder engagement on these bills. We just want to sell our art and our handmade items in a safe in equitable and competitive marketplace where the industry and the state does not penalize us and our customers every time we turn around, which includes the retail delivery fee. Instead of encouraging and thanking shoppers for spending their money with Colorado sellers, the state smacks them and us with a penalty fee. Again, for all the talk of supporting small business, the Colorado retail delivery fee penalizes Colorado home-based sellers, many of us retired and impaired. are home-based for family and health reasons, unable to participate in the mainstream job market and insults our customers. Please vote yes on this bill to repeal the retail delivery fee. Thank you. Sorry, I can't see you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for listening.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and agreed this is my favorite committee. My name is Emily Hadaway, a legislative liaison here on behalf of CDOT to urge a no vote on HB 26-1266. The retail delivery fee is a critical source of funding for a variety of state and local transportation initiatives that range from basic road maintenance to bridge and tunnel repairs to CDOT's busting program. The bill would result in a 128.7 million reduction for transportation funding in the upcoming fiscal year across counties, cities, and the state. 11.3 million of this funding is remitted directly to CDOT's state highway fund. While the majority of CDOT's funding is non-fungible and dedicated to a specific purpose, the state highway fund is our only flexible source of funding. the state highway fund The primary funding source for maintenance and operations programs, which includes repairing guardrails, filling potholes, snow plowing, street sweeping, mowing and debris cleanup. Maintenance is ineligible for federal funding, so eliminating this fee will reduce the amount of funding each CDOT region is allocated for critical maintenance activities. We also utilize the State Highway Fund to draw down discretionary federal grants, typically requiring a 20% state match. eliminating this fee could impact the department's ability to draw down federal funding in regard to the bridge and tunnel enterprise repealing the retail delivery fee would eliminate 12.9 million in revenue dedicated to bridge and tunnel repairs portions of the retail delivery fee are also remitted to the clean transit enterprise the non attainment area pollution mitigation enterprise and the multimodal options fund I know a lot of my other partners will be speaking specifically to these other enterprises and the importance of them, but I do want to stress the importance of supporting these programs for meeting the state's climate, transit, and air quality goals. Eliminating the retail delivery fee would negatively impact the delivery of planned multi-year local projects to which funding has been awarded and dramatically reduce the number of future awards for the multimodal options program. So with that, States across the country are facing transportation funding shortfalls, and the retail delivery fee is a critical piece of this puzzle. I urge a no vote on this bill.

Thank you to the Madam Chair as well as the entire committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Chandler Sanchez. I'm a transportation advocate with the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, and I'm here to testify in opposition to the bill today. Largely, we're against this bill because it would undermine the work that we've been doing in Colorado in order to modernize our transportation system, meet our climate goals, and to provide cleaner options for getting around across the state. In Senate Bill 21-260, the legislature created a set of retail delivery fees to help meet these goals by increasing access to people, businesses, and transit agencies to electric vehicles and essential charging infrastructure. The enterprises funded by these delivery fees have propelled Colorado to become one of the leading states of the country for electric vehicle adoption as well as deployment and they continue to play a very key role in mitigating regional air quality or maximizing regional air quality reducing emissions. Thank you sorry. The fees that these programs fund the programs that rely on these fees have expanded transit across the state and they empower local governments as well as transit agencies in order to upgrade facilities and launch popular pilot services that wouldn't otherwise exist without these fees. And as a result, Coloradans are able to save money on fueling up at the gas pump and we're also laying a foundation for a prosperous, equitable, and healthy future for all of our residents. At the same time, these fees help fill gaps in our budgets when it comes to roads, bridges, and tunnels, which exists in large part because inflation has eroded the power of Colorado's gas tax, which hasn't been raised since 1992. These fees give more funding to state and local governments to ensure that they're able to make sure our roadways are in good safe condition and they allow us to make really needed progress on reducing our existing maintenance deficit. A repeal would add financial stress at a time when federal support for transportation electrification has ruined and it would cut revenue when the state is already feeling the impacts of year over year deficits. So now is not the time for Colorado to reverse course on our goals and our commitments Repealing these delivery fees would take away hundreds of millions of dollars from the work in order to better or would take away hundreds of millions of dollars that we putting right now to making a better transportation system I urge you all to vote no

members of the committee. Thank you for hearing my testimony today. My name is Mike Salisbury. I am the Director of Transportation Programs at the Colorado Energy Office. I am here today in an position to this bill. Energy offices mission we are reducing greenhouse gas missions saving Colorado consumers on energy cost all by advancing clean energy. Several reasons why we are opposed to this bill. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state of Colorado and a very large contributor towards our particulate pollution and ozone pollution. This legislature has set very aggressive goals for greenhouse gas emissions 50% REDUCTION BY 2030, 90% BY 2050, AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THOSE GOALS ARE ATTAINABLE WITHOUT WIDESPREAD ELECTRICATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR. THE ENTERPRISES FUNDED BY SB21260 ARE ALL PRIMARILY FUNDED BY THESE FEES AND LOSE ALMOST ALL FUNDING IF THIS BILL WERE TO MOVE FORWARD. TODAY I WANT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMMUNITY ACCESS ENTERPRISE, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO SUPPORT THE STATEWIDE USE OF ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS. The transition to EVs has huge consumer benefits. If the state meets its 2030 EV goals, that'll Colorado consumers will save about a billion dollars per year in fuel costs. That's a lot of money back in the pockets of Colorado consumers. Our current approach has been very successful. As Mr. Sanchez mentioned, we are one of the top states, retired for the top state in the country in 2024 and 2025 for EV sales. And the community access enterprise is integral to ensuring that we can continue to meet the demand with needed charging infrastructure and vehicle programs. We did some research with a company, the International Council of Clean Transportation. They identified there is over a billion dollars in need for additional charging stations to support the rollout of electric vehicles over time. The investments from the access enterprise are critical element of this along with utility and federal funds. They help leverage private sector investment to increase EV charger build out in the state. I'll mention a couple of the key programs that are funded with these fees for the Community Access Enterprise. There's a Charge Ahead Colorado program, the DC Fast Charging Plaza program, and the Fleet Zero program, which all provide charging station infrastructure across the state to make it convenient and affordable for people to charge electric vehicles. We also provide funding via the vehicle exchange Colorado program which provides incentives for low income residents to access and purchase new and used EVs. Programs funded by this enterprise have provided funding to 62 of Colorado's counties and there's an online dashboard you can learn about all the projects this enterprise has funded over time. We strongly urge you to vote no on HB 261266 and keep our state on a pathway towards consumer savings, clean air and climate goals. Thank you very much.

That's okay. No problem. Larrate, no problem. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Again, my name is Renee Larrate, Climate and Transportation Campaign Manager at Conservation Colorado, the state's largest environmental advocacy organization. And we're here to testify today in strong opposition of HB 1266. As you know, this bill seeks to repeal the retail delivery fees. This fee is a critical source of funding for a state's transportation infrastructure, particularly for those transit services that benefit all of us Coloradans here Eliminating it would undermine our ability to maintain and expand essential transit programs worsening congestion air quality and transportation equity. The retail delivery fee was designed to provide a much-needed revenue source to support road maintenance, pedestrian infrastructure, and public transit. And as Colorado continues to grow, our transportation system is facing increasing demands. And so repealing this fee would just strip away a dedicated funding source, forcing cuts to transit services that many residents like ourselves rely on, including also impacted our older Coloradans, individuals with disabilities, low-income individuals, and communities of color. Additionally, investing in public transit is essential for reducing vehicle emissions and combating climate changes. We know Colorado set ambitious goals to improve air quality and expand sustainable transportation options to meet our state transportation and climate goals. The revenue generated by the delivery fees directly support these efforts, ensuring that we can continue making progress in creating a cleaner, more efficient transit system. Moreover, it would put a dedicated funds at risk that are allocated to the clean transit enterprise for helping transit agencies purchase electric-powered buses, support the development of EV charging stations, funding for modifications to maintenance and storage facilities to accommodate zero emission vehicles, assistance for transit agencies with the transition to clean energy, and would discontinue equity-focused initiatives, ensuring that disproportionately impacted communities benefit from the clean transit investments. While there have been concerns raised regarding the impact of the delivery fees on small businesses, it's important to recognize that transportation infrastructure is truly a shared responsibility. The retail delivery fee is a small but very powerful investment in the state's future. Repealing this fee would not only deprive our states of critical funding that would increase, but it would also increase long-term costs as roads and bridges deteriorate, and we would be taking a step back in the fight against climate change and air pollution. And so for these reasons, I respectfully urge you to oppose HB 1266 and really aim to intact the integrity of Colorado's transit funding.

Good afternoon, and thank you to the committee members and chair for hearing comments today. I'm Teddy Wilkinson, the Sustainability and Alternative Transportation Administrator for the town of Breckenridge. Today, I'm speaking on behalf of Colorado Communities for Climate Action, a coalition of 48 local governments representing one-third of Colorado's population. CC4CA opposes this bill because it arbitrarily revokes a fee that has provided demonstrable benefit to communities by providing accessible, sustainable public transit. In Breckenridge, some of the ways these fees have delivered real benefits include the Community Access Enterprise awarding a camp grant that enabled Breckenridge to continue and expand its e-bike share program for the 2025 and 2026 seasons. over 77,000 trips have been made using our e-bike share program since its launch. The Community Access Enterprise also partially funds the DC Fast Charging Plaza's grant, and the town is currently working with a developer that was awarded Plaza's funding to deploy seven new public fast charging ports in our community, providing much-needed public charging infrastructure. The Clean Fleet Enterprise awarded the town Fleet Zero grants that supported the installation of eight level two EV chargers for our fleet vehicles, helping the town transition its own fleet to zero emission alternatives with lower total cost of ownership And finally the Clean Transit Enterprise awarded funding to our Breck Freeride Transit Agency to support the purchase of seven new battery electric buses alongside additional funding that will provide expanded service offerings over the next five years. None of these projects would have been possible without the support of retail delivery fees. Breckenridge's experience shows that this funding is going to important projects that deliver benefits to the public. If we plan to meet our statewide climate goals, then these retail delivery fees must remain in place.

Help me through something that I'm just kind of finding a little bit of a conflict with when we talk about zero emission goals and climate neutrality and charging plazas and all of these other things that I have a hard time believing that is of utmost importance,

Thank you, Representative, for the question there. We find that in Colorado, many low-income folks have a car and are a no car or even a one-car household, while also take public transit as well. As we know, our roads are deteriorating and that we don't have, as CDOT, Emily Haddaway from CDOT was speaking to, this funding specifically goes towards people that do have vehicles as well, which are a lot of times low-income families sharing one car that also utilized public transit, going to improving roads, improving bridges. That helps with our cars to maintain our cars longer, that we have proper road maintenance. So this is sort of a more than a single-pronged approach. This is a multi-pronged approach to solving and a critical piece for funding transportation infrastructure, not just dedicated towards EVs. And then also additionally for EVs, while we did have federal rollbacks on those tax credits, We still do have tax credits in this state and especially for low income individuals. I believe there might be still a $2,500 tax credit. I need to check that on EVs for low income households. And oftentimes, again, I will go back to saying many low income households do share one car and have to also take public transit, which this is going to that this helps fund those vital public transit programs that we have. A LOT OF LOW-INCOME FOLKS HAVE TO WALK TO AND FROM JOBS TO ACCESS AMENITIES AS WELL. THIS HELPS WITH PEDESTRICTURE AND THEN ROAD MAINTENANCE FOR THOSE LOW-INCOME FAMILIES THAT ARE DRIVING ON THE ROADS AND GOING THROUGH BRIDGES AND TUNNELS. et cetera.

Thank you, Chair Ferlich, Vice Chair Stewart and members of this most excellent committee. I'm Maude Narrow, volunteer lobbyist for the League of Women Voters of Colorado, speaking in respectful opposition to HB 261266. As you know, the League has been nonpartisan all our 106 years, using our longstanding positions on issues to take stances on bills and ballot measures. Recall that this body is unique among legislatures, state legislatures, because TABOR, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, prohibits the Colorado General Assembly from raising taxes. You all can, however, create and raise fees. For years, there were attempts to adequately fund transportation structure, including repairing Colorado's many dangerous bridges. Finally, in 2021, the 163 pages of SB 21-260 created many fees to improve transportation, including a number of fees on retail deliveries that altogether deliver over $200 million a year to preserve, improve, and expand existing roads, bridges, transit, expand the electric vehicle charging network. Today's bill, repealing the retail delivery fees of that earlier 2021 bill, drives a $121 million hole through hard-won funding for transportation and the transition to electric vehicles. The League of Women Voters believes efficient and economic government requires adequate funding. This bill cuts almost half the SB21-260 transportation funding, leaving a woefully inadequate amount, and leaving our roads, bridges, and transit to crumble and air quality to worsen. The same retail delivery fee repeal was tried three years ago, and this year, committee voted it down. Please oppose the second attempt. Thank you for the chance to testify and happy to hold for questions.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to share today. My name is Tara McCarthy. I'm the Executive Director of Pike Ride, the nonprofit electric bike share in Colorado Springs and Manitou Springs, and I'm here to oppose HB 26-1266. First, I want to say thank you for the funding driven by retail delivery fees. These funds have allowed us to provide community programming with many positive outcomes in transportation and beyond transportation as well. Specifically, these funds have allowed us to provide over 16 trips to low and no income residents and approximately 53 trips to with standard riders on our electric bikes What these numbers don share is the immense impact of these trips Because of our services 87 of our low participants say they were able to gain or maintain housing, 82% were able to maintain or access employment, and 88% said that they were able to access medical care. And if I could share a story today, last year, one individual shared that as an adult with disabilities, our program allowed her to obtain her very first job ever, and that her life had been changed because before our program, transportation was one of the biggest barriers she faced. These outcomes for low-income and no-income individuals and people with disabilities are a direct result of retail delivery fees. In our region, we know that low and no-income individuals that have access to electric micromobility, such as our e-bikes, are able to make life-transforming changes from access to employment, medical care, education, and social connections. I ask that you oppose this bill because without these retail delivery funds, many of our residents would be left without transportation. And without affordable transportation, many would be left without access to the necessities and opportunities that not only improve their individual lives, but ensures that our entire community can thrive.

Hello, can you hear me?

Great. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Aaron Kressing, and I lead transportation policy.

Yeah, can you hear me?

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in opposition to HB 261266. I'm here to talk to you.

My name is Pico Collor, Executive Director of Bicycle Colorado. I want to speak to the traffic safety component of the retail delivery fee. You all hear quite a bit of data about rising traffic fatalities in Colorado, and that is true. Bike pet fatalities are up 89% over the last 10 years. But what you probably hear less about is that traffic crashes, traffic violence is a uniquely problem. In the United States, there are 12.2 traffic fatalities per 100,000 people. In Colorado, we're about in the middle of the bell curve at 12 per 100,000. When you compare the United States to our peer nations, developed countries, 25 peer nations, the average fatalities per 100,000 is 4.5, again, compared to 12 in Colorado. Canada is at four per 100,000. UK is three. Norway is two. Second to the U.S. is Latvia at eight per 100,000. So it's not that Americans don't know how to drive compared to folks in other countries. What differentiates our country in Colorado is that our infrastructure prioritizes speed over safety How we design and build our physical infrastructure is a key determinant on whether people can move around their community safely whether they driving pedaling walking taking transit The retail delivery fee is an essential source of revenue for safe streets infrastructure. What was alluded to earlier that I want to underscore is that it benefits communities across the state, urban, suburban, rural, small, large. I printed a list of communities today specifically for safe streets infrastructure, things like sidewalks, curb bump odds, pedestrian odds, crosswalks. And we have like Nederland, Boulder, Lone Tree, Evans, Granada, Canyon City, Colorado Springs, La Vida. I mean, the list goes on. So at a time when traffic fatalities are rising in Colorado and the demand for this specific type of funding for safe streets infrastructure exceeds supply, now is not the time to reduce funding for these

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm David Knight, mayor of the town of Basalt Colorado and I'm speaking on my own behalf in opposition to bill 1266 hospital 1266 when the retail delivery fees passed in 2021 they helped to address the severe underfunding of Colorado's transportation systems the bill set in motion a series of funding programs that are currently supporting zero emissions transportation options across the state repealing these fees though will set Colorado back both on reaching our statewide climate goals and on maintaining modern transportation infrastructure. In 2025, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation surpassed electric generation for the first time. This is a marker of the state's successful programs to reduce emissions from our electric utilities, but it also puts us face to face with one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize, which is transportation. The greenhouse gases emitted during the millions of vehicle trips Coloradans take every day are a huge challenge to address. we need to be looking for more ways to creatively fund and support zero and low emission transportation options for people and not walk back areas where we have already made progress. Especially in the midst of federal rollbacks of incentives for sustainable transportation, we cannot afford to repeal the retail delivery fees and thereby end the programs they support. Therefore, I urge this committee not to support this bill. Bill 1266 is disconnected from the reality that Coloradans face and only serves to needlessly hinder efforts to improve Colorado's transportation system. Thanks for your time today.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep. Roog. We do miss you on this committee. I know that affordability – I think we can all agree that affordability is an issue. you know, everything is going up except wages, right? And I appreciate your concern about affordability and your commitment to wanting to address it, but taking money from taking funding from all of these other programs and services when we're already in a tight, tight budget year is, for me, it's just not the answer. So respectfully, I'll be a no today.

Mr. Gravey, please call the roll. Representatives Basenecker.

Yes.

Sucla. Yes.

Thank You madam chair I am pleased to be bringing you House Bill 26 1239 Code Enforcement Authority today I bring you a bill to make sure that our county governments are working correctly for their communities counties have the ability to adopt ordinances for weeds, pests, trash, and safe structures, all to ensure the health and welfare of constituents. However, the means by which counties enforce these ordinances has eroded and become complicated. H.R. 1239 does not grant any new authorities to counties. It addresses the mechanisms that counties rely on to enforce their existing authorities. All of these mechanisms go through a court process, and that does not change under this bill. By relying on a court process, there is a natural check and balance on counties. This bill came to me by Adams County even before I went through the vacancy committee to be here at the Capitol. And you'll be hearing from them and others today. I think it's valuable to note that this was unanimously selected as a legislative priority by the Colorado counties incorporated, meaning all blue or red or purple counties are facing problems with these enforcement mechanisms. Here they are. One, it allows relief for violations to be sought in either district or county court, and this means that property owners are not subject to two separate court cases for abatement versus penalties. Two, it increases the penalties for violations. These penalties will be modified by way of amendment, and there are plenty of them, believe me. But you'll hear in testimony that the current penalties are inadequate. Some violations are limited to 100 max 3 It allows code enforcement officers to commence these cases as these are the experts in county codes Currently only peace officers may do so And four, it allows more time for counties to execute warrants when a judge grants to do so. Right now, 10 days does not allow enough time for counties to contract for services, let alone account for inclement weather. And five, the statutes and processes are separated out for general county ordinances, building codes, pests, and noxious weeds. So we have to make these changes across these various areas of statute, and we've aligned these sections. This is just practical but more understandable for judges and constituents too. And I'm honored to sponsor this bill with my colleague, Representative Richardson, and I will turn it over to him.

WOULD YOU WANT TO GO WE GO BACK TO REPRESENTATIVE GOLDSTEIN THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR THAT JUST CONFUSES US BECAUSE WE HAD OUR WHOLE SPIEL ALREADY WORKED OUT We go back to Representative Goldstein Thank you Madam Chair That just confuses us because we had our whole spiel already worked out

All right. So we'll start with Section 1, and that's the county court jurisdiction. And it expands the jurisdiction of county courts to grant injunctive relief for certain ordinance violations, zoning violations, and building code violations. and the purpose is to eliminate the split venue issue between county and district courts for enforcement cases. And there are no amendments to that section.

Okay, Section 2, abatement ordinances. Section 2 updates how county can seek and execute administrative warrants to abate weeds, rubbish, and dangerous buildings or structures, increases the amount of costs and extending the time to execute the warrants as detailed. Page 3, lines 14, changes percent for cost and inspection related to abatement actions from 5% to 10%. And the purpose is to make the cost consistent with similar provisions in other sections of the current statute. And an example, you can see page 5, line 19. Page 4, line 26, changes the time to execute an administrative warrant from 10 to 30 days. and the purpose is to allow counties that have to mobilize third-party contractors sufficient time to execute the warrant. The current 10-day requirement wastes court resources and forces the defendant back into court to extend the time to execute the warrant. And then 3015-4011A, I-5A, relates to the removal of weeds. So that's page 5, lines 9 through pages 7, line 5. Page 6, lines 5 through 8 removes the limitation on enforcing weed ordinance against a property that is in foreclosure, and the purpose is to minimize the impact on neighboring properties from weeds continuing to grow on abandoned properties in foreclosure while waiting for the foreclosure to be completed. This is very complicated and a lot of work went into this from all these entities. Page 6, line 24 changes the time to execute an administrative warrant from 10 to 30 days And the purpose is to allow counties that have to mobilize third-party contractors sufficient time to execute the warrant. And as I said before, the current 10-day requirement wastes court resources and forces the defendant back into court to extend the time to execute the warrant. And on page 7, lines 6, 20, and 25 through 27, addition of securing as an option to address an unsafe building or structure, The purpose is to provide counties with a more cost-effective and temperate approach for addressing unsafe buildings and structures when appropriate. The current statute technically only allows removal of an unsafe building or structure. Demolishing and removing certain buildings is costly upfront burden on counties. Demolition may involve an asbestos evaluation, potential asbestos remediation, and a demo permit from the state. And there will be instances as well when the building may be unsafe but repairable without removal or demolition. Page 7, lines 27. Page 8, lines 1 through 7, 15 through 27. Page 9, lines 1 through 12. Additional language, so the process of seeking and executing administrative warrants to abatement dangerous structures is consistent with the abatement process in the other sections for rubbish and weeds. So we had to coordinate with a lot of different aspects of it to keep them all in line. Page 9 lines 13 through 27 Page 10 lines 1 through 22 This edition adopts the same civil penalty procedures to ordinance violations for weeds junk dumping of junk and unsafe buildings and structures as the suggested amendments to the civil penalty procedures for zoning and building code violations. All violations have the civil penalty of $100 to $1,000, and there will be amendments for that, per day with the same lien procedure and enforcement in either county or district court. The purpose of that is currently the only monetary enforcement for county ordinances is civil fines through the civil infraction process. The rules of civil infractions adopted by the Supreme Court are not workable for the enforcement of these types of county ordinances. The rules do not permit the county attorney to appear on behalf of the county. And the four ordinances for which civil penalties would apply are not traditional law enforcement areas. Law enforcement is required to prosecute cases under the rules of civil infractions. The inclusion of civil penalties will allow the county attorney to represent the county. Grant County has submitted proposed changes to the rules of civil infraction to the Colorado Supreme Court in an effort to address these issues. Additionally, the amount of monetary penalties for counties is much lower than penalties available to most municipalities. Municipal courts of record may impose fines of up to $2,650 per day. The amount was set in 2013 in House Bill 13-1060. The fine amount also may be raised with inflation. Municipal court not of record may impose fines up to $300 a day, so they're lower. The fee process mirrors the lien process for civil penalties applicable to zoning and building regulations under current law. The amount of penalties also mirrors the proposed changes related to civil penalties for violations of zoning and building regulations to the bill. Page 10, lines 23 through 27, page 11, page 12, lines 1 through 21. These provisions bring the injunctive process from the rules of civil procedure into this statute and provide more clarity on the process which is only generally described in the rules. relief is currently available for ordinance violations and does not expand county authority. The purpose is to clarify the injunctive process for ordinance violations and to recognize all possible remedies in one statute. I will ask to pass it back. That is by far the longest section of the bill, but it will be proposing amendments in a few areas. Amendment 1 ensures that violations of trash in the right-of-way are actually tied to the property owner. We've had cases. I manage our Legion Hall where everybody thought we needed their old couch and they dump it outside the building. That was not something that this would be an infraction of. Under Amendment 2 clarifies that if the attorney is absent or the clerk is absent. Well, not so much the amendments.

Does that sound okay?

Well, we still have sections of the bill we would like to clarify.

All right. Section 3 is civil infraction fines for ordinance violations And Section 3 increases the fines for civil infractions except traffic offenses And on page 13 lines 3 and 4 retains the maximum fine for civil infractions at as amended except for traffic violations. Section 4 is the zoning resolution and ordinance violations. And it updates the procedures for enforcing zoning resolution and ordinance violations. All zoning enforcement remedies, for example, court action for monetary penalties or equitable relief, such as an injunction and civil infraction procedures, are combined into one statute with the procedures for pursuing the different remedies defined. We have penalties. The penalties are similar to the other section in terms of enforcement and fines. It establishes the zoning violation penalties enforcement through civil actions and it consolidates the violations, combines court jurisdiction, and raises the penalty amounts. On page 13, line 26, the added language combines all zoning violations into one subsection, and the proposed subsection includes violations for using the building structure or land currently listed separately in 1B subsection. 1B is slated for deletion. And page 14, lines 12 through 19. So the purpose is to consolidate the violations to improve statutory drafting. Page 14, lines 5 through 8, the language authorizes both county and district courts to order monetary penalties and raise the amounts of the civil penalties in these suits. Currently, to get both monetary penalties and equitable relief, example, an injunction, two lawsuits must be filed, one in the county, one in the county court, and one for the monetary penalties and one in district court for equitable relief. The change also increases the civil penalties in these court actions from the current one-time penalty of $500 to $1,000 with a daily penalty not to exceed $100 to a daily penalty of not less than $100 or more than $2,650. And the purpose is to eliminate duplicitous lawsuits needlessly burdening the courts, defendants, and counties, and to create parity in the penalties available between counties and municipalities. This increase is also consistent with the proposed increase in civil lawsuit penalties for violations of building resolutions or ordinances, and the maximum penalty for civil infractions for zoning and building violations. And it establishes standards for issuance of violation notices, enforcement, authority, and applicable court rules in civil actions. On page 14, lines...

Because it's a 31-page bill.

And we want to emphasize how thorough this bill was put together.

Okay. I will just point out what –

Well –

Okay. Just make note that Section 4 is on zoning resolution or violations. Section 5 is on building code violations. And we do have Section 6 is on the home rule counties. So all the aspects of the ordinance were addressed. And then I will pass it on to my co-sponsor, and he can go over the amendments and why they happened.

Okay. Pardon?

And it's a maximum.

Yes, absolutely.

but the traditional just fix it issues are still available.

And I'd also like to add, Representative Brooks, that as of now what we have in counties that are unincorporated is that the peace officers have to deal with this. And would you rather have an armed sheriff come up and tell you to get rid of your weeds, or would you rather have a code enforcement officer work with you to get rid of your weeds?

My name is Kelvin Bernhardt, representing Morgan County Commissioners. We are asking for the support of this bill, And I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the issues that Morgan County has had. One of our recent places that was a big nuisance property, we would have multiple individuals living in this house and tents around it, all kinds of refuse and junk in there. This house has actually not had any electricity or water for up to 18 months. People, in order to keep warm, they would start fires. They actually burned one building down. This property has become a drug haven to the point in the last three years. I am a former cop. This property has been hit with a SWAT team three different times that I know of just within the last few years. It is a public hazard, health hazard. Without running water, these people, when they go to the bathrooms, they will go outside. It doesn't matter where. when we did search warrants of the place, we'd find coolers, we'd open up the coolers, and there'd be fecal matter in there. It's a real hazard. We wanted to clean it up. We ran into the problem. In order to get orders from court to clean it up, we would have to go through district court. If we wanted any type of fines, we would have to go through county court which really creates an unfair burden not only on the county but also the defendant in the case, let alone take up the judicial time with going to court these cleanups are not cheap since I been in in office for a little over a year Morgan County has had to go in and clean up two different properties and and it's literally costed the county between $70,000 and $90,000 per property to clean up. And with this bill being passed, it will help streamline the process between the courts. It will help out the county. And we are strongly requesting the support to get this bill passed. Thank you.

Okay, let me say the E. This is Merritt Linke. This is my 14th year as a Grand County Commissioner. I also serve on the board of Colorado County Zinc, CCI. And first of all, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. And thank you, sponsors, Rep. Goldstein, Rep. Richardson, for bringing this forward. First, I want to tell you what this bill is not. And then I want to tell you kind of how we got to this point. First of all, it is not an attack or diminishment of private property rights. Grand County adamantly respects and protects those every chance we get, unless it's a public safety or health hazard, and then that's when we take some action. And secondly, it is not government overreach and is not giving ourselves more power. It simply supports local control and provides a pathway to correct and alleviate certain egregious code violations, which some of you have already heard about some of these. So now I want to talk a little bit about the history and from Grants County's perspective of how we adapt to this change. I'm going to go through these pretty fast. It's just a pretty long process, and I'm not sure exactly how much time I have. Over three years ago, the county learned about a zoning violation of a mobile home in a district where mobile homes weren't allowed. months of negotiations and attempts failed and property owners wouldn't move the mobile home. The county filed a civil infraction case and won at that trial. The judgment was reversed and on appeal the case was dismissed because the county filed the civil enforcement process that's set up in the statute and didn't follow the rules for civil infractions. many requirements of the statute are in direct conflict with the rules for civil infractions. For example, and I think this was already mentioned, civil infractions have to be prosecuted by peace officers, and the statute requires the county attorney to enforce the zoning code. Well, the sheriff doesn't know about the zoning code. We'd rather have him out there in the public doing safety violations, getting speeding tickets and solving crime or going on legal criminal type calls. And the county attorney can enforce the zoning code when the county attorney doesn't even allow to be present at the hearing. So going on, since the mobile home was still there, the county filed a civil suit. Civil cases only have the applicable procedure and don't impose any penalties or violations until after the judgment. Hammer at the end, as you just heard. property owners dragged out the pre-judgment proceedings for the better part of a year before and there are no consequences for that kind of delay continuing on the case is still pending zoning violations still exist still there in violation debate so this is what brought about the procedural conflict to the county attention The county investigation found that the procedural conflicts between the statute and the rules that appears to be a building code pest control and noxious weeds were abatement and weed abatement context

I will wrap up. So let me wrap up. county is hamstrung by these these conflicts in the procedural conflicts and has no way to do this so this bill fixes these conflicts and allows the process to go forward to fix these violations thank

shira cohen uh please state your name who you represent um and i apologize that you can't see the clock but you've got three minutes thank you madam chair and members of the committee i'm shira I am the assistant Grand County attorney and I'm testifying today on behalf of Grand County and Colorado counties incorporated. I'd like to thank you all for your consideration of this bill and thank representatives Goldstein and Richardson for sponsoring it. As we've heard, there are quite a few problems with existing law that prevent counties from effectively enforcing state statutes and local regulations that govern zoning, building, blight, noxious weeds, pest control and unsafe structures. This bill fixes all of the problems and removes procedural barriers without expanding governmental authority and introduces consistency across various processes and jurisdictions. I'm a detail-oriented person. When I first became aware of the conflicts between code enforcement statutes and the court rules that Commissioner Linke just discussed, it bothered me quite a bit. This was over three years ago and here we are today. The procedural conflicts that Commissioner Linke and Representative Goldstein spoke to came about because of a large overhaul of criminal law that this body passed a few years ago. During that overhaul, violations of zoning and building codes were decriminalized and reclassified as civil infractions, which was a necessary change because no one should be criminally liable for building a fence two inches too high without a permit. But the reclassification as civil infractions introduced quite a few glaring conflicts between the rules that the court would later draft for civil infractions and the statutory procedure. So Grand County came to the table of this bill hoping to fix those problems. Counties don't want more enforcement powers. We just want to be able to use the powers that already exist. This is a long bill, but there is a lot that needs to be fixed so that enforcement powers can function. And I'm happy to go into any further detail if that would be helpful. In sum, this bill takes county authority that already exists and just tweaks it a little bit to make the processes work. It creates, for the first time, guidelines for fine and positions. It, for the first time, introduces requirements that counties investigate and obtain evidence before they can begin enforcement procedures. And sets up a clear process that counties, courts, and citizens can navigate and understand. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I REPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU SUPPORT THIS BILL.

GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. This is Kathy Henson and I am the current Vice Chair of the Board of Adams County Board of Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of House Bill 26-1239 and thank you to the sponsors for bringing it forward. County code compliance programs exist to protect public health, safety, and neighborhood quality of life. However, under current law, counties face limitations that can make it difficult to address ongoing violations effectively. First, this bill allows counties to use credible witness testimony and evidence when violations cannot be directly observed by a code compliance officer. Currently, an officer must personally witness a violation before enforcement can be moved forward. In practice, this requirement can prevent counties from addressing violations that occur outside normal enforcement hours. Many violations happen in the evenings or overnight when officers are not present. In those situations, residents often document the activity through photos, videos, or written statements, yet counties frequently cannot act on that evidence. For example, Adams County is currently managing a case where neighbors have repeatedly documented a violation that seems to occur regularly. Despite this evidence, the case cannot move forward because an officer has not personally observed the activity. Second, the bill establishes meaningful minimum daily civil penalties for unresolved violations. In some cases, courts have reduced daily penalties to as little as $1 per day, even when violations continue for years. When penalties are too minimal, they do not provide a meaningful incentive for compliance and are sometimes treated as simply the cost of doing business. That said, striking a balance of fairness is important. Amendments to the fines are being proposed in response to stakeholder feedback to better balance the policy while addressing the challenges counties face. This legislation encourages timely compliance and helps ensure enforcement is effective and proportional to the impact on surrounding neighborhoods. For these reasons, we support House Bill 261239. It modernizes county enforcement authority, strengthens compliance tools, and helps counties better protect community health, safety, and quality of life. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm available for any questions.

Ms. Cohen. Are you referring to noxious weeds?

I could be missing something, but the draft of the legislation that I believe is currently before you don't believe mentions Bushes. Brush.

Sorry, Madam Chair. Weeds and brush were actually legislated more heavily in a bill that was sponsored by our Senator, Senator Roberts. These are noxious weeds. I don't know the specifics of which weeds are classified. There's a lot of Latin scientific names in there that are beyond me. And that is something that is generally enforced by our community development department. As the attorney, I don't get involved until after community development has already tried to negotiate any sort of lack of compliance with noxious weed laws with a property owner. It's only if the property owner refuses to negotiate and try to get work done that I ever become involved. And so far, that hasn't been a problem in Grand County. Our violations have been more along the lines of unpermitted, uninspected structures being built. We had someone build a shack around a hole in the ground and use it as an outhouse in a neighborhood of domestic wells, that kind of thing.

It was before I came into office. It would have been in the fall of 2024. It's Morgan County in the past. Nothing has ever really been done. We are starting to try to get some enforcement to these places that are that are a danger to health and public safety. We want to start getting those cleaned up and taken care of.

But this law is going to be for all 64 counties.

Oh, sorry.

Yes, ma'am.

That is not the intent of the bill. These are the three that we are starting with We have many more areas in the county that the risk to public health and safety However with Morgan County it a smaller county 30 residents We have a small budget, and we have to limit, as county commissioners, we've limited them to two cleanups per year. But the HOA idea is that is not the intent of this at all.

that is correct um generally the vast majority of counties do have a standardized building code the international building code but um title 29 the uh land use act within that title grants the authority to set zoning and building codes to counties through their county commissioners

But my question to you is currently in the city of Thornton,

a very good summation of this bill. What we are seeking in this bill and it is a priority bill of Colorado counties incorporated meaning it has support from across the state so from the smallest rural counties to Denver we are supporting this bill so that when you cross those lines into unincorporated areas it is not suddenly an unkept un-code unenforced area for public health and safety. What we want is to have more authority on par with our home rule cities so that we can protect the health safety and welfare of the residents and the business community across our counties because it imperative that our codes and our enforcement authority have some teeth to them so that we can get to the compliance that is going to improve all of our communities. The goal is compliance, but currently we do not have the mechanisms or the teeth in our authority to make that effective to protect people in our communities. In Adams County alone, we have over 100,000 people living in unincorporated areas and you have other metro county areas with similar numbers. And when the local government of the county is their county, is their government authority, we need to be able to have the authority to protect them and maintain our neighborhoods for the well-being of our communities. And that's what we're seeking here. So we don't want people to be able to look across the street from your community and say, that's unincorporated Adams County because everything's being dumped there and it's not being cleaned up. Thank you for the question. I hope that was a sufficient

I'm not sure who of the witnesses this is for, but can any of you talk about the potential financial impacts of the costs, the fines for our seniors living in your areas, for our lower income folks, for our disability community? community, can you please let me know what things are in place to make sure that this bill isn't creating any undue financial burdens to the people that I just mentioned? Ms. Cohen.

And then, Ms. Commissioner Henson, if you wanted to chime in on the burdensome, potential burdensome-ness of the fines.

Thank you. Thank you for joining us today. We appreciate your being here and joining us online. We have a panel of folks in amend and questions. So Aaron Ray, I believe, is in the room with us from Department of Natural Resources. And then can we bring up for questions only Michael Cunningham and Nick Massey. And when we have you come up, well, we'll start with Mr. Ray, three minutes, and can you tell us who you are and who you represent?

I and members of our impacted DNR divisions are available to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you and Mr. Cunningham can you in addition to introducing yourself I understand

introduce yourself and tell us what questions would be appropriate to direct to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is Nick Massey, Deputy Director at the Colorado State Land Board, and happy to answer any questions that pertain to state land board ownership across the state and other issues that are related. Thank you. Thank you. So the two folks online are for questions only from the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety and the State Land Board. And then we have Mr. Ray from the Department of Natural Resources. Any questions?

Thank you for being with us. And finally, we'll bring up Ms. First from CCI.

Good bill.

Questions for Ms. First. Representative Sucla. Thank you, Ms. First. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, my question is, I've said in this committee, and for the first three weeks, I watched over 20 unfunded mandates on counties that will actually cost the counties hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can talk about your landfills. And that wasn't a priority, but a priority for code enforcement is. I'm trying to understand why the code enforcement is a bigger priority than the county's unfunded mandates. Ms. First.

Additional questions for Ms. First?

Thank you. We'll bring up our bill sponsors. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to testify on House Bill 1239? Seeing none, the witness phase is complete. Representative Richardson, I will have you move your amendments one by one and tell us about them at the same time. So let us start with Amendment No. 1. All righty. I would move L001. Seconded by Representative Wynn. Tell us about Amendment 1. All right. So this one does several things. The first in Section 2, it discusses the right-of-way violations, and I think I alluded to this earlier, ensures that somebody isn't penalized for somebody else dropping trash or refuse or old couches near their property, that if they're not the culprit, they're not the ones that would have to pay any penalty or be acted against. It discusses the construction materials exemption that DNR had requested. It fixes a very small clerical area where both the summons and a complaint need to be issued, not just one or the other. and it strikes a reference in Section 8 to the district attorney that was incorrect and ensures consistency across the statutes that this is a county attorney issue. Questions from committee about Amendment No. 1? Objections to Amendment No. 1? Seeing none, the Amendment No. 1 is passed. Amendment No. 2, Representative Richardson. All righty. This one allows the county clerk and attorney in the absence of the clerk to certify a lien. You want to move your amendment? But I would love to move it first. So I would move L002 to the bill.

Any questions about L002? Any objections to L002? Seeing none, L002 is adopted. Amendment number three, Representative Richardson. I would move amendment 003. Second. Seconded by Representative Wynn. Tell us about Amendment 3. Okay. This changes some language that was in the bill as it was introduced, which talked to just a reasonable belief that there was a violation and now requires that there be competent information and a reasonable investigation. There were some concerns brought forward that a reasonable belief could just be a doctored photo, et cetera, that there was no requirement to dig in a little deeper before the process started. Questions about Amendment No. 3? Objections to Amendment No. 3? Seeing none, Amendment No. 3 is passed. Amendment No. 4, Representative Richardson. I would move Amendment L-004 to the bill. Second.

All righty. This returns the maximum civil infraction penalty to the original $1,000 that was in statute. It had been raised to That is excessive and we moving back to what was originally there Okay, I would move L005. Thank you, and these comments will apply to L006, 8, 9, and 10 as well. They just address different parts of statute, but they make the following changes. Reduces the maximum civil penalty to be consistent with municipalities at 2650. It creates a graduated fee schedule so people don't just start at the max. And it allows the courts to impose penalties different than the graduated schedule, but less than up to the 2650 and list several specific things that they can look at that mitigate why somebody may not be able to comply. Questions about Amendment No. 5? Objections to Amendment No. 5? Seeing none, Amendment No. 5 is passed. Amendment No. 6, Representative Richardson. I would move L-006. Second.

All right. And if you had no questions or comments on five, six is the same. It just applies to a different section of statute. Questions? Objections? Seeing none. Amendment six is passed. Amendment number eight, is it correct that we skipped seven?

Amendment number eight, Representative Richardson. All right. I would move L008.

All righty. If you had no objection to five or six, you should have no objection or questions to number eight. It is the same. Just, again, a different section of statute. In this case, building code ordinances. Objections to questions for amendment number eight. Objections to amendment number eight. There are two more. I think it might be defaming Representative Bazinecker to say that this is Bazinecker style but we'll leave him to defend his honor we are on amendment number 8 are there any objections? seeing none, amendment 8 is passed amendment number 9, Representative Richardson I move L009 to the bill

If you had no questions or objections to 568, you should have none to 9. It applies to pest ordinances. Questions about Amendment No. 9? Objections to Amendment No. 9? Seeing none, Amendment 9 is passed. Amendment 10. I would move L010 to the bill. Moved and seconded. explanation representative Richardson the exact same explanations as L005006008009 but it applies to noxious speed ordinances questions about amendment number 10 representative Sucla thank you madam chair I would just like to say that I believe that Bayes Necker had 13 last year so you don't hold the candle to him yet True. And I'm assuming that these amendments were broken up into one-page amendments to make the deadline, but we would have loved one amendment more.

But anyway, so, especially when they're all dealing with this $2,650 violation. But we are on Amendment Number 10. Any questions? Seeing none, any objections?

Amendment 10 is passed. Any additional amendments? Any amendments committee? Seeing none. the amendment phase is complete. Wrap up, bill sponsors. Representative Goldstein.

Excellent. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. My co-sponsor pretty much said it all. This bill doesn't create anything tremendously new in the powers that counties have. It doesn't require any enforcement that they don't want to do, and it is truly methodology to enforce the codes that they have in place themselves. But it does so in a way that actually might get us across the finish line to get something done. As it was mentioned earlier, you know, we rewrote our codes three times while I was a county commissioner. At one point we hired a former sheriff's deputy who was post-certified so we could scratch tickets and move in that direction. That didn't work because we ran into other pieces of statute. This just makes what we have workable. Our goal is always voluntary compliance. There are some people that frankly want to be made an example of, but those examples never happened because the code we have or the statute we have really doesn't allow you to progress to that in a way that's meaningful. So not something that any county wants to do, but it is a set of tools that can be used or not used at anybody's discretion. So I would urge a yes vote. A proper motion sends this bill as amended to the Cal.

Second. Moved and seconded. Committee comments before voting.

Mr. Gravy, please call the roll.

Baysnicker. Brooks. Pass.

Lindsey. Yes. Wynn. Yes. Pascal. Yes. Phillips. Yes. Richardson. Yes. Sukla. No. Velasco. Yes. Oh, wait, you're here. Sorry, I forgot. Weinberg. No. Vice Chair Stewart. Yes. Brooks. No. Madam Chair. Yes that passes on a vote of 9 to 3 Congratulations you on your way to the Committee of the Whole Last bill of the day from our very own Representative Sukla Bill 1209

Okay, committee, please come back to order and Representative Sucla, please tell us about House Bill 1209. Thank you, Madam Chair. So in 2020, the Gallagher Amendment was repealed. It was misrepresented to the people, and it made property taxes skyrocket. The legislator had passed some bills to offset it, but those have ended. they ended in end of 2025. The senior credit only applies after 10 years and is capped at $750. The cost of living has increased for Social Security, yet Social Security only increases between 1 and 2% a year. we're asking that the assessment rate be capped at no more than 4% in this bill. The state establishes the assessment rate. The assessor establishes the value, and the county can lower their mill levies if they so choose. Initiative 50 in 2023 was negotiated with the legislatures, and it was withdrawn. and in replace they said, well, we're going to make some temporary adjustments, which the governor did in 2023. Those adjustments expired in 2025. They promised to fix it by then, but they did not. So how is it acceptable that we can let government grow bigger, faster, than the people who are actually paying the bills for the government? And to give you an example, in 2019 to 2026, property taxes have doubled. The current cap, I believe, is 5.2 percent. Social Security at the max, I think, is 2 percent. So our citizens on a fixed income are going backwards by 3 percent. I've had this bill brought to me from multiple constituents, and I've got to tell you, the constituents, the majority of them were people that didn't have very much money. They were people that live in single-wide trailer houses that are on a fixed income. They're older. and they said that if it keeps going, then they're going to eventually have to sell their houses. And I worry about that because they going to have no place to go Where they going to go is they going to go to a nursing home And when they go to that nursing home they going to use whatever the asset that they sold say was or worth of property was worth They're going to go to the nursing home. Nursing homes cost $5,000 to $7,000 a month. After they burn up the money from the nursing home, then they're going to go on Medicaid. And now the state's going to be on the hook for $7,000 a month. In my opinion, it's better to lower their assessment rate to the 4%, keep those low-income people on a fixed income in their homes than it is to send them to the nursing home. And that's why I brought the bill, and I'm sure there will be a lot of questions. Thank you. Thank you. Committee, questions. Representative Paschal. Thank you, Madam Chair. So property tax, all that money goes to the county and counties and the districts within the counties. So my question is, what kind of stick holding have you done with the counties and school districts and the like who would be getting their funds reduced potentially? Representative Sucla. Well, my question to that is this year their funds were increased by 40%. So if they've increased it by 40%, then we could go, what, five years before they would actually see a net at the same? Representative Paschal. Can you tell me how you came up with 40%? Yeah, my wife owns a realty company, and we went through all of the assessments, and the average is a 40%. Some of my constituents had an 80% increase. The reason that it went up 40% is because the Gallagher Amendment was repealed in 2020, and then the timeframe for the temporary tax reduction in the state legislator was the end of 2025. That let the taxes skyrocket, so all the counties and the special districts got a 40% boost. So if we did my temporary tax reduction capped at 4%, it's going to take five – well, it would take 10 years actually just to get where they're losing money because they're working on a 40% increase. Additional questions? Representative Brooks. Thank you, Chair. You mentioned the Gallagher repeal, which created a drastic reset in property tax assessments throughout the state. We can't do regional Gallagher. So understand there are some areas that it was very effective for and others that it was devastating for. But this is just looking forward, right? I mean, this is just the tax year starting in 27 through 32. So, I mean, how much relief is it bringing to folks in light that Gallagher was really the big reset, and we don't really expect anything to continue to have that kind of impact in the future? Representative Sucla. I want to make sure that I got the question right. You're asking me how big of a relief it actually is? Correct. Moving forward, tax year is 27 through 32. Representative Sucla. It's a 1.2% savings a year. Additional questions? Representative Paschal So I just want to follow up on my question before I don think I got an answer to it What kind of stakeholding has gone on with this bill Representative Sucla. The stakeholding was done with, I think, the most important people that I could have done the stakeholding with, which would have been my constituents, the 88,500 people that are being taxed the 40% increase this year. no but I talked to more of them than I talked to the to the local government because I don't work for the local government I work for those people okie dokie we have a couple witnesses I think you can stay in place if you want representatives who clower you can move move away up to you we have Ms. Benton in person, so we'll bring you up. And then our other testimony is online. So we'll first do Ms. Benton. And then is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on 1209? So let's go ahead with Ms. Benton. We're

Thank you. Questions for Ms. Benton from committee. Representative Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chair. As mentioned, property tax can be rather – oh, there's more people online. I'm sorry. No? We'll do that after. We'll do that after. Okay. We're good. That's sidetracked. But as you had mentioned, it can be very dense. So what are the areas that we're missing here that this bill seeks to address?

All you're doing is what's different from a pawn shop scheme or something. But we also need improvement beyond this bill, in my opinion. I'd love to see an amendment. Is that the Department of Local Affairs is the one who sends out the valuations, tells the local governments, here's what you should be capping it at. Meaning you use the mill levy to bring it down to counter those values jumping up. DOLA does not have teeth. So even though they'll send a notice that the local government violated it and have a case where it's intentional disregard over collection, we'll deal with it later. Department of Local Affairs needs teeth. I talked to the new director who took over for Joanne Groff, and the good employees over at Dole are very very responsive have stated their hands are a little bit tied SO AS WE enter this new period of this 5 or 10 cap or the 6 or the 12 DOLA also needs to have enforcement because end of the day, as it states on DOLA's page, it's taxpayer enforcement. Just like TABOR, what that means is a taxpayer has to put out thousands of dollars just to file a complaint in district court.

Yes. It helps cap those, excluding the conversation of a bond where there's obligations there. Beyond that, well, you've asked a great question because metropolitan districts, business improvement, those special districts have very, very little oversight. And in many ways, those developers will waive those caps before there's even the residents. That goes into a very intense subject that, one, those property owners got their rights waived before they were even there. and unfortunately, we have to address this at the state level. We have to address it at the state level. I ran into one of the state reps. He said, why do we have all these property tax issues at the statewide level? Here's the core of the problem. We as citizens, we are very used to having our right to petition here in Colorado, where we could cap, like, the state assessment rate and the classifications. We have that power. Citizens do not have the power to petition a cap on property taxes in three areas. One is at the county. We can't petition. That's a real sad, sad state of affairs. It's old ruling. Even though the state, the county is an arm of the state, so we should have that petition, right? Second is special districts. Third, school districts. So we forced that conversation to hear where we'd actually like to have it at the local level, but we as citizens have to be at that table, and that means we have to have the right to petition. I hope I answered your question on a dense subject.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and committee members. My name is Christina Manthe and I represent the League of Women Voters of Colorado. The League is a non-partisan organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in their government and influences public policy through education and advocacy The League of Women Voters opposes House Bill 26 The League supports a system to raise revenue which incorporates social, environmental, and economic goals. The League of Women Voters supports a revenue structure that is equitable, certain, convenient, economical, flexible, adequate, reliable, and simple. House Bill 26-1209 interferes with the local government's ability to raise revenue by reducing the rate by which the local governments may increase their property tax collections. Local jurisdictions already have trouble supplying services that they are required to support under existing laws. This proposal further limits their ability to provide adequate services. This bill is not flexible in that it does not allow for different needs in different parts of the state nor does it consider the different rates of growth throughout the state metro districts have many problems and they should be addressed at some point but this is not a good place to be addressing the metro district problem we urge you to vote no on house senate house bill 26 1209 thank you for your consideration

And ask for favorable recommendation.

Respectfully no.