May 8, 2026 · Transportation, Housing & Local Government · 7,808 words · 15 speakers · 110 segments
Housing and Local Government Committee will come to order. We have one bill up today, 152. And Mr. Gravy, please call the roll.
Representative Baisnecker.
Here.
Brooks.
Present.
Garcia-Sander.
Present.
Jackson.
Here.
Lindsay.
Here.
WEN.
ALOHA.
PASCAL.
HERE. PHILLIPS. YES. RICHARDSON. HERE. SUCLA. HERE. VELASCO. HERE. VICE CHAIR STEWART. HERE.
MADAM CHAIR. HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMITTEE. OUR FIRST AND ONLY BILL, I BELIEVE, IS SENATE BILL 152. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START US OFF?
REPRESENTATIVE BARON. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. Members, members of the committee, you're about to hear the best bill this session. I always say it because it's true. So this bill, SB 26152, it stems from occurrences that happened in two of my municipalities in my district that a lot of the people were up in arms about. I'm sure you've heard about it in the news, the $350 speeding tickets that were issued in my area. it's something that we were trying to fix with this bill. We're concerned that our current state law is opening the door for revenue enhancing programs like speed cameras for municipalities and we want to stop that. We want to prevent that from happening. So, you know, just a little overview about this bill. SB 26152 builds on prior legislation led by Senator Faith Winter, SB 23200, to ensure automated traffic enforcement systems are implemented fairly, transparently, and with appropriate safeguards. This bill reflects real-world implementations, feedback, and makes targeted updates to improve consistency, protects drivers, and reinforce the automated enforcement is focused on public safety, not revenue generation. The key improvements increase transparency in public notice, requires advanced public notice before new systems go live, establishes clear signage requirements at enforcement's location. So currently the signage requirements is two-and-a-half-inch letters. This is improving it to three-inch letters. So it's going to be bigger, it's going to be more visible from the roads. It implements a warning period prior to issuing citation. A fair and clear process to contest violations creates a defined process for vehicle owners to demonstrate they were not the driver. It allows transfer of liability when appropriate. It establishes clear timelines and documentation standards. Reasonable and consistent enforcement prevents citation tied solely to temporary speed reductions, example weather-related changes. Ensures enforcement reflects stable, clearly posted speed limits. Updated penalty structure maintains warning for low-level first-time violations, clarifies penalty tiers across violation levels, provides predictable adjustments to penalty caps beginning in 2035. This eliminates revenue-based enforcement initiatives, prohibits compensation tied to ticket volume or revenue generated, reinforces that AVIS programs are about safety, not profit. Why this matters for Colorado? This straightens public trust and automated enforcement, protects due process and fairness for drivers, supports consistent statewide transparency policy, keeps enforcement aligned with safety goals, no financial incentives. Bottom line, Senate Bill 152 is targeted, practical update, and improves how automated enforcement works in Colorado by ensuring it is transparent, fair, and accountable while maintaining a strong focus on roadway safety. And I'll move it along to my co-prime here.
Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's a delight to be in this committee. I don't think I have ever come to this committee in the four years that I've been in the legislature. So it is long overdue to be in front of you. And I miss this committee. Anyway, and I don't think we've ever run a bill together either. So today's the day of firsts. Anyway, I just want to spend a minute going through what has changed from Senate Bill 200 to Senate Bill 152. As you heard from Representative Barone, this really is a cleanup bill that is intended to improve fairness, transparency, and consistency while maintaining traffic safety enforcement. In Senate Bill 200, that bill established and expanded Avis enforcement and focused on enabling use. Senate Bill 152 maintains the Avis framework but improves fairness, clarity, and trust. In terms of speed enforcement, Senate Bill 200, there wasn't any clear statewide minimum threshold, so low-level speeding could be enforced. Senate Bill 152 creates a structured approach to speed enforcement. So a vehicle that is going one to five miles per hour over the speed limit, there's not a ticket. Only a warning can be issued. For vehicles traveling six to nine miles over a speed limit, there's a warning. That's the first violation, and then after that, an individual can receive a ticket. The public notice requirements are strengthened. In Senate Bill 200, there were just basic notice requirements. In Senate Bill 152, there's stronger notice, so notice has to be available on a website, also via the city's social media page, clear signage and written warnings are all a component. Because really what we're trying to do here is change behavior, right? And changing behavior involves warnings so that people have the opportunity to make a change before they actually receive a monetary fine. In terms of driver protection, Senate Bill 200 established a basic process in which a ticket could be contested. In this bill, there are expanded protections. There's a clear process that a driver can undergo if perhaps somebody else was driving their vehicle and they are the one that's receiving the ticket. And there also covers the sale, theft, I'm sorry, theft. Wow, I can't say. No, it's theft. I know. Thanks for trying to fill in the blank, though. I appreciated that. That's a good co-prime right there. Anyway, it covers sale, theft, and rentals. In terms of variable speed limits, Senate Bill 200 did not address this. In Senate Bill 152, we limit enforcement during temporary conditions. Think about weather. And then in terms of AVIS versus ALPR, these are the automatic license plate readers. They're not specifically addressed in Senate Bill 200. and in our bill we explicitly exclude ALPR, and this only applies to traffic enforcement. So I hope that was a helpful overview of what some of the big structural changes are. And, again, this is a cleanup bill, and we would very much appreciate your yes vote.
Terrific. Committee questions for bill sponsors. Representative Phillips.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question for Rep. Barone is I just want to know where – so what's the problem we're trying to solve? So is this on 34 going through Kersey that all these tickets were happening?
Representative Burrón. Thank you, Madam Chair. This was a problem that originally in Canada Road 49, the best road in Colorado, by the way, best maintained, by the way, too, as well. That road is amazing. So there was a speeding camera on Canada Road 49 going northbound, facing the northbound lane, almost to Highway 34, getting to Highway 34, that they were issuing tickets of $350. Now, that has been resolved. The city of Kersey has resolved that issue. They have refunded people that have been feed. that have been feed on those speeding tickets. And they are in agreeance with this bill. So they're not fighting me on this bill. And I'm not going to talk down to what they have done in the past. They've remedied it. But we're trying to prevent this from happening in other municipalities in the state of Colorado. Just capping the speeding ticket for 25 miles an hour and over to $150. That's the cap. Now, this does not take away from the municipalities and the local police departments or even any police department from doing what they need to do. If there's a patrolman that catches you speeding, this just eliminates it from speed cameras themselves. So a patrolman can still catch you speeding and still charge you over $150 for going 25 miles an hour over and charge you with a misdemeanor because that is reckless driving. 25 miles an hour over is pretty fast. So, and of course, these fines will still double in work or school zones. So we're just trying to prevent that from happening from cameras. We're not eliminating anything from actual patrolmen that are catching you doing this. Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. I understand and appreciate in many ways what this bill is trying to do, particularly when it's about protecting drivers, establishing procedures for appeal, adding signage, the warnings, capping limits. You know, that's great. But if you allow me to just kind of address the elephant in the room that I think exists as far as doesn't this still yet either legitimize or expand government-level surveillance over traffic systems and drivers. I mean, that still is, I mean, at the very least, it still legitimizes that practice, does it not? Representative Barone. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with you, but it's already in statute. They can do it whether they want to do it or not. We're just trying to minimize the impact to the people with this bill. What I'm trying to do is just not make it a revenue-enhancing thing, but they're using it more for, like, safety or trying to get people, like my co-sponsor said, and the habit of not speeding, of being safe on these roads and seeing this signage and seeing that speed camera there and knowing that, you know what, I need to slow down, I need to follow the speed limit, and that's the way I see it as safety. Of course, I agree with you. If we can get rid of them, we'll probably get rid of them.
Representative Garcia-Sander, and then we'll go. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just was wondering if you could go through the signage again, the required signage both pre-signage or pre-camera implementation and then upon implementation. I heard you talk about the size of the letters is going to be up, but does this bill address how many signs are going to be in advance of a camera and the, I think I saw something about a timeline 30 days before implementation, but can you just kind of go through the signage, the warning signs again, please.
Representative Barone. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So the lettering on the signage that I know of is right now currently the requirements are two and a half inches tall. This is moving up to three inches tall. Yes, whenever there's a new camera going to be implemented, they have to put out the signs 30 days prior and put it on social media that they're putting them out in this area 30 days prior. And I'm not quite sure exactly, I forgot what the distance is between the sign and the camera itself. I can get back to you on that.
Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Did you have a... I was going to offer some additional information for Rep Sander, if that's okay. Garcia Sander.
Rep Wilford. Okay. So you asked about the public notice and the signage. So what was included in that section is a requirement around social media announcements at least 30 days before this technology is deployed, mandatory written warnings during the first 30 days of operation, and then physical signage at each Avis location with standard minimum lettering and public information campaigns are now mandatory rather than optional And so that a key change And what we know is that signage alone helps change behavior And so that why we we shifting from optional to mandatory
Representative Garcia Sander. Thank you, madam chair and just a follow-up is there is there in this bill? I know there's you said Requirement for signage to be where the camera is But are there? I don't know how to warning signs ahead of time like like 350 yards or 1,000 yards before the camera. Is that in this bill?
Representative Wilford. I will be honest in that I don't know off the top of my head. I'd be happy to go back through the bill and follow up with you after committee. There's language in Senate Bill 200.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was wondering two questions. The first is the implementation dates around 2035. How was that selected? It's a long time from now.
Representative Wilford. That is a great question. I don't know.
The question was why was it determined that the implementation date for this would be 2035?
Can you speak to that? We could have flying cars.
We will continue. Oh, Representative Barron?
Yes. I can. Right here on Section 3, it says the act will take effect 12.01 a.m. the following day after the expiration of the 90-day period after adjournment. So this will take effect. The increase in fees that's in the bill will take effect after 2035. So we're not increasing the fees right away. We're just implementing the actual legislation and rules and guidelines, like I said, 30-day notice, the lettering size changing, and the caps. But the fees are increasing in 2035, and I can tell you exactly what they're going to increase to.
Representative Wilford. Thank you. I'm a little bit underprepared than I normally like to be. This bill came very quickly over from the Senate. And so I was able to phone a friend and learned that the bill would effectively go into effect now with the different ticket prices. And in 2035, the ticket prices could increase, or I'm sorry, ticket prices, ticket fines could increase based on inflation. because otherwise we would continue to just have $40 fines that in 10 years could not mean that much to the people who are actually paying them.
Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I see the prices here. The violations may increase in 2035 from $40 to $50 for speeds, what was it, 6 to, here we go. six to nine miles an hour over. And then for the 25 miles an hour over the speed limit, may increase from 120 to 150 in 2035.
Representative Richardson. Thank you for that. The other piece is separating out the automated license plate reading piece. that I think it's a good thing because it allows us to focus more on their surveillance aspects of ALPR. But are there, by carving them out, does that leave anything unregulated in the APLR arena?
Representative Burrard. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not believe so, Rep. Richardson, but we can have a further conversation about that and possibly see if we can fix any kind of issues that may arise by our conversation, but I don't think it would. Thank you.
Representative Nguyen. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the answers that you've given so far. Some of my questions have been already answered, but one core element of this bill is that it requires an Avis manufacturer or a vendor to be a monthly flat rate. can you just go over more information about that flat rate why was it implemented and how this is going to help municipalities
and local control. Representative Barron Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Representative. Your question was in the original bill, Senate Bill 200. Is that what you're asking about? No, this is in 152 that this requires the Avis manufacturer to have a flat monthly rate. I'm just wondering what that rate is and why. Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the flat rate is to eliminate the risk of a contract being done with Avis in a municipality by a ticket-by-ticket basis. So that opens the door for, you know what, we've got to get our money, issue more tickets. So no, we're trying to eliminate that risk by having a flat rate so where they're getting their money, The municipalities are still enforcing the law and making people safe without the incentive of issuing more tickets to get more money.
I do not see it.
Yes, Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I did get the answer to you, Representative Garcia-Sander, for that signage. in Senate Bill 200, the original bill, says no less than 300 feet before the corridor and 300 feet before each static camera.
Okay, we will move on to witness testimony. We just have a handful of folks, so if you guys would... Conceivably, you could stay there or you could move. Up to you. We're not sure if a person who signed up as Mr. Lucky is both a person and here. So, okay, we're calling you up remotely. And then Ms. Stables and Heather Stauffer is remote, and then Mr. Lanzer. This is a mixed opinions on the bill panel. Okay. We will start with Ms. Stables, and CML is in amend position. We're doing three minutes. Please introduce yourselves, say who you represent, if anyone, even though we already know, and please proceed.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Bev Stables. I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 members. I first want to say that I do wish I was testifying today in support of Senate Bill 152 and really hope that we would be at that position by this point. We certainly support proper guardrails and compliance with these systems and have committed to educating our members about how to comply and use them responsibly. Ava systems keep our roads safe. When drivers speed, especially when they speed at levels exceeding 25 miles per hour over posted limits, all drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians are put at risk. As we encourage folks to use other means of transportation beyond single occupancy vehicles, we have a responsibility to keep our communities safe, and it's one that local governments take very seriously. Of course, no one likes to get a speeding ticket, myself included, but what's worse is turning a blind eye to dangerous driving on our roads. Like I said, we certainly support the goals of transparency and accountability as well as safety, but there are some outstanding issues with this legislation that need to be addressed. We need to ensure that local governments retain the authority to pursue criminal misdemeanor charges for the most dangerous speeding behaviors, specifically violations exceeding 25 miles per hour over the posted limits. If you think about that, that's 50 miles per hour in a 25-mile-an-hour zone. Speeding at this level is not a minor infraction. It represents a serious and immediate threat to public safety. Drivers traveling at excessive speeds dramatically increase the likelihood and the severity of crashes, putting pedestrians, bicyclists, and other motorists at significant risk. Local law enforcement officers see firsthand the devastating consequences of that behavior in our communities. Municipalities play a critical role in addressing these offenses. They provide a direct, efficient, and locally accountable avenue to hold individuals responsible when their actions endanger others. Removing this authority will weaken enforcement and send the wrong message about the seriousness of extreme speeding. Our amendment request is not about over-penalizing drivers. It's about preserving a necessary tool for addressing the most egregious violations. It ensures that communities can respond appropriately to conduct that goes far beyond ordinary traffic infractions. We believe that this is a balanced and practical return to the status quo that aligns with the bill's broader goals while maintaining essential local control over public safety. I respectfully urge you to take this issue seriously, and I hope that we can resolve these issues before the bill comes to the floor. Thanks for your time and consideration.
Thank you. We'll go to Mr. Lanzer.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Fran Lanzer. I represent the White Line, a Colorado nonprofit founded to honor Magnus White and to protect the cyclists, pedestrians, construction workers, first responders, and vulnerable road users without the protection of two tons of steel on our roads. Magnus White was a 17-year-old elite cyclist, a member of the U.S. National Cycling Team. He was training on Colorado Highway 119 outside Boulder on July 29, 2023, when a driver struck and killed him. Magnus didn't die in an accident. A driver made a choice, and Magnus paid for it with his life. Colorado 119 is also where CDOT first deployed Avis on a state highway corridor. The organization founded in Magnus' memory has a direct and personal stake in whether automated speed enforcement works and works well. That is why the White Line is here today in support of Senate Bill 152. We support Avis not as a revenue tool, as a safety tool. Speeding is a leading contributing factor in cyclists and pedestrian fatalities. Automated enforcement enforces speed limits at scale consistently without requiring an officer to be physically present at every location. For people on bikes and on foot that consistency is not a procedural convenience. It is the difference between coming home and not. This bill makes Avis a stronger and more credible safety program. program. First, it lowers the threshold at which first-time violations may produce a penalty rather than a warning. Under current law, drivers going less than 10 miles per hour over the limit on a first offense receive only a warning. This bill brings that down to six. More violations can have real consequences, and that changes behavior, which is the point. Second, it creates a new penalty tier for the most dangerous speeding, 25 miles per hour or more over the limit. These speeds are deadly to people who are not inside a vehicle, a cyclist, a pedestrian, a child crossing the street, codifying that tier sends a signal that this is not a minor infraction. Third, it requires vendors to be compensated at a flat rate, not at a percentage of citations. When a vendor pay is tied to ticket volume, that incentive is revenue, not safety, and this bill closes that door. Automated enforcement is accountability applied consistently at the places where people are most likely to be killed. Cyclists and pedestrians do not have the option of choosing a safer road. They travel the roads that exist. Construction workers and first responders don't choose the roads where they work. We owe them all enforcement that makes those roads safer too. The white line urges a yes vote
on Senate Bill 152. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go online to Ms. Stauffer. We're doing three
minutes Ms. Stauffer. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the committee my name is Heather Stauffer I'm here today on behalf of the city of Boulder the city is in an amended position on this bill Boulder is a city of pedestrians students cyclists and transit riders they are on our roads our sidewalks our bike lanes and our intersections at every hour of the day to keep them safe the city has adopted a robust vision zero policy and we actively use every tool available to us including AVIS to hold speeding drivers accountable and ideally to deter them from speeding again. It's about safety and not profit. Unfortunately the bill is drafted undermines that work. I want to focus on one provision the penalty structure in section 4c. It caps the maximum civil penalty for AVIS detected speeding of 25 miles per hour or more over the limit at 120 And because everything Avis issues is a civil notice violation, the structure eliminates our ability to enforce those speeding, that speeding ticket, excuse me. It also by removing language in statute eliminates our ability to issue criminal level citations for reckless driving and class two class two misdemeanor for speeding Here what that means on the ground If a driver is caught on camera doing 45 in a 25 mile per hour residential zone in Boulder, conduct that meets the legal definition of reckless driving under this bill, the most that that driver receives is a $120 ticket in the mail. There's no points, no license consequences. It's the same penalty as the driver going 11 over. So to put that in perspective, speed is the single biggest factor in pedestrian fatalities. A pedestrian struck at 20 miles per hour has about a 10% chance of being killed. At 40, that chance climbs to roughly 80%. The drivers we most need to deter are the exact drivers that this bill treats the most leniently. So we're asking that this bill be amended to restore the ability for local communities to pursue criminal level citations through Avis technology for drivers going 25 miles or more above the speed limit.
And I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. And then Mr. Lucky, who is registered in an opposed position, we're doing three minutes this afternoon. Please say who you are and who you represent, if anyone, and please proceed.
Well, my name is Lucky225, and I'm representing myself. I am in an opposed position. I do commend the authors for attempting to clear registered owners who are not the driver by adding the affidavit section. However, just recently a court in Florida found that similar statutes like that, though civil, are still quasi-criminal as they penalize the conduct. And so this burden-shifting nature where you have to prove that you weren't driving presumes guilt and was found unconstitutional. So I have concerns that that may happen in Colorado as well. Also, in the current bill, you make a call out about Avis versus ALPR and how they're different, and this is not going to regulate ALPR systems. um just bringing this up because i know there is a vendor uh by the name of red speed that is both a photo radar camera that integrates with the flock system and uh and stores both violators and just people passing by as alpr uh camera images and i think there's kind of a contradictory conflict there if that vendor was to be used by a municipality. I also have concerns about the tech that's being used, and there's no call out in the actual statute about what discovery someone might be entitled to for one of these civil proceedings. These, you know, CDOTs using average speed cameras. You'd have to prove where the cameras are. How would a defendant know for sure if that camera is actually there? They'd have to go out and look. And then when it comes to photo radar devices, those are not calibrated daily like police radar is with tuning forks to ensure accuracy on the day the citation was issued. These photo radar devices are only calibrated once a year or once every two years, depending on the vendor. There's nothing in the statute that calls out, you know, how this technology should be calibrated. And because this is a new technology, it hasn't been addressed in the courts. And given that a photo radar device could go uncalibrated for two years. By that time, thousands of citations could be issued, and it might be out of calibration and be issuing tickets when the driver wasn't actually speeding. Also, this bill talks about warnings. You guys tried to make warnings mandatory, but yet the wording in the bill still says may issue warnings. It then says such warnings, which may be issued, must be issued in writing. So it still doesn't appear to be mandatory in the current bill.
If you can wrap up, please.
I'm sorry. And then you added hourly billing, which I just wanted to call out as well because Kersey's vendor was using that, and Nine News had found that the vendor billed one municipality for more hours than we're in a month.
Thank you. Your time has expired. Thank you. Okay, committee, questions for two folks online and two folks in person.
Representative Garcia-Sandra. Thank you Madam Chair. This is a question for Ms. Stauffer from Boulder. I guess I was kind of considering what you were talking about and so what you're advocating for is flexibility for communities to be able to have that latitude and what their their fines are and I'm thinking that Boulder is very pedestrian heavy as are many of our front range communities, but we also see these cameras out in the nether regions, eastern plains, western Colorado, four corners area, and we don't have as many pedestrians. And so I guess the urgency for large fines may feel less to citizens. So I'm just kind of curious if you could expand on that a little bit, if that's what you're advocating for, is the flexibility for communities who need more of a hammer for their their um finding structure is that for ms stauffer ms stauffer thank you madam chair and thank you
representative um yes so for boulder our more the more concerning provision for us is this actually removes our ability to use avis data to issue citations um for reckless driving so um for us Yes, we would like to see some flexibility for fining. I mean, different conditions, I think what you point to is very apt. Different communities have different conditions, and we need to be able to take that into account. For us, we need to be able to deter speeding within our communities because we have such a heavy pedestrian population. And so the ability to use AVIS data to issue those reckless driving citations is paramount. It's very, very important. And unfortunately, by removing subsection 1.5 from the revised statutes, 42.4.11.10.5, we would no longer be able to issue those citations via AVIS data. um we had yes miss stables i i just wanted to add i i think it's important to clarify and differentiate between the conversation around increasing fines versus speeding that's over 25 miles per hour let's say that that's caught by um a police officer on the side of the road that's a criminal misdemeanor offense so separate from a fine that is such an egregious speeding violation that there's a different like criminal process that can be pursued. So whether you're collecting the data from a speed gun or an Avis system, that's part of the problem is that this bill removes our ability to prosecute those cases that like Heather and I mentioned are really the most egregious. And that's different from asking for flexibility around imposing fines.
Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Ms. Stables. Have you had an opportunity to review the amendments that have been passed out here in committee today? And if so, does that change your position on the bill?
Ms. Stables. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep, for the question. Yes, I have had a chance to review the amendments. Unfortunately, they do not address the criminal misdemeanor enforcement component. We have a couple other technical concerns. There is an issue with reference to how the bill is currently drafted. There is a reference to an extended public information campaign that's required for a local government to conduct before deploying this system. And there's nothing in the bill that explains what that entails. So we would just like some clarity. If we have an extended information campaign, how do we comply? That would be helpful for us to know. and then we are hoping to work out a piece around movable AVIS. So within a designated corridor that's already complied with requirements around signage or public information campaigns, these systems can be moved within that corridor, and that's intended to continue to deter dangerous driving behavior. So if drivers realize that right next to this one intersection, that's where the speed camera is, they'll slow down there, but then speed up beyond it. And so that's why we move the cameras to try and keep within that corridor folks driving under the speed limit throughout that entire corridor. And so we just want to ensure that we have flexibility to continue to use that. I want to be very clear that that's not intended to be revenue generating. But if you do have people consistently driving over the speed limit at these really egregious levels, then you want to be able to be reactive and like, or responsive, I should say, to to that type of behavior and tried to deter it.
Rep. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you expand a little more on the criminal enforcement piece that you just mentioned and what your position is on that?
Ms. Stables. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Representative. Yes. So regardless of how the data is captured today, if an individual is speeding, let's say they're going 50 miles per hour in a 25 mile an hour zone. If they are caught with a speed gun from a law enforcement officer on the side of the road, that is not only a fine, but that's actually a criminal misdemeanor offense. And so then that can be referred to the police department for investigation and the law enforcement agency can pursue that criminal misdemeanor charge. similarly if that data is captured on an avis system same technology really to capture like what the speed you're going versus the speed limit that's posted that data is then shared with law enforcement and they can choose to open an investigation to also pursue a criminal misdemeanor offense so we just want to retain the ability regardless of how we're capturing this data the speeding violation is the same and is so egregious because it's over 25 miles per hour beyond the limit that we want to have the ability to enforce that criminal misdemeanor which exists
right now representative when thank you ma'am chair this question is mr lanzer um you mentioned your remarks how this uh bill would be holding ava systems accountable and making it more transparent. Can you expand a little bit more on that and how this would do that?
Mr. Franzer. And Fran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm used to being called and a number of combinations of that. Also LANCE, LANCE WORKS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, REPRESENTATIVE WYNN. I THINK PRIMARILY SPEAKING TO THE FLAT FEE, I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I KNOW THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PAY STRUCTURES OR INCENTIVES OR BONUSES. I THINK THERE'S CERTAINLY BEEN A NUMBER OF STORIES ABOUT HOW THESE CAN BE USED AS REVENUE GENERATORS. AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE CLARIFY IN STATUTE THAT THIS IS A FLAT FEE, THAT THIS ISN'T something that is going to be used as a revenue generator. And so I think that is important. I think clarifying the fee structure is really important. Or not the fee structure, the penalty fine structure and setting that out is important. And one thing that I didn't kind of dive into or didn't have the time to dive into in my testimony, You know, the quirk that has allowed some towns to charge really high fees at the 25 or over tier for CDOT, that quirk doesn't allow them to charge anything. So at the stretch where Magnus was killed on 119, if a driver has a violation 25 or over, they get charged nothing. SO FIXING THAT HAS BEEN REALLY IMPORTANT AND THAT WHY THIS BILL HAS BEEN A PRIORITY FOR THE WHITE LINE AND MAKING THAT FIX HAPPEN SO I THINK PROVIDING CLARITY IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PENALITY So fixing that has been really important and that why this bill has been a priority for the white line in making that fix happen So I think providing clarity in terms of what the penalties are providing clarity for when they going to increase in the future is important I think providing clarity in terms of the flat rate I think is important. So that's what I meant in terms of transparency.
Last question for this panel, Rep. Pascal.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Back to Ms. Stables wanting to follow up on the potential for reckless driving charges. so this used to be allowed and this bill changes that and I guess this may be more for the sponsors than for you but if you know why has that change been made is there concern that this technology is not as reliable as the gun being used by a police officer on the side of the road or why why was that taken out Ms. Stables I certainly welcome the sponsors to provide further input here. My understanding from conversations with sponsors and proponents is that there is a fear around issuing, like that the AVIS system is just issuing the summons to an individual, but that is not what's happening. The data collection, whether it's, like I said, AVIS or Speedgun, is still referred to law enforcement. The same process is followed. you still have of course your rights to appeal, et cetera. Like that process is the same. It's just what we're calling a system that's collecting the data, but you're still collecting that data and referring to law enforcement regardless.
Okay, we thank you very much for joining us. Thank you for joining us online. Last call for anyone who wishes to speak on Senate Bill 152. Seeing none, the witness phase is complete. amendments, bill sponsors. It's how are you? Would you like to start with L-16? Would you like to go in numerical order?
Representative Barone. Yes, I do. Yeah, I'll start with L-16. I don't know who's going to move the...
Vice Chair Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-16 to Senate Bill 152.
Second. Moved and seconded. Please tell us about L16.
Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. So L16, what it does is it allows the current vendor's contracts, CDOT asked for this, actually, to stay in place so there's no renegotiation while the contract is still in play. After the contract ends, that can be renegotiated. But we were just trying to be a little fair here and just allow the contracts to stay the same.
Questions about L16? Objections to L16? Seeing none, L16 passes.
Vice Chair Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L17 to sign a bill 152.
Second. Moved and seconded.
Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. So L17, what it does is it, there was a bill last session of school buses cameras to be able to, Rep. Pascal was on it, so it was Minority Leader Caldwell. This allows the vendors on school buses be a bill from last year. Compensation doesn't change. So we're trying to not create an unintended consequence to that bill, which is allowing the compensation not to change.
Questions about L-17? Objections to L-17? Seeing none, L-17 passes.
Vice Chair Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-18 to Senate Bill 152.
Second. Excellent.
Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is a simple amendment. We unintentionally left out leased vehicles when we clarified sold or rented vehicles, and so this is just making sure that we're consistent across the board.
Questions about L18? Objections to L18? Seeing none, L18 is passed. Additional amendments, bill sponsors. Any amendments, committee? Amendment phase is complete. Wrap up, bill sponsors. Who wants to go first?
Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee, for hearing us out here. I think this is a very important bill to be able to clarify for municipalities, be able to clarify for these vendors like Avis to be able to create these new contracts according to what this new law is going to be, and municipalities and CDOT to have clarification on what they can actually do and what the caps are. I heard that CDOT misread the bill that they can charge over 25 miles an hour. That wasn't true, but we're trying to make it clear that there is a cap over 25 miles an hour. Now, to go back to using this technology for being able to pursue criminal charges, I personally don't believe in that. You could still do that with a patrolman doing that. but now it's just using a camera and technology to be able to do that and pursue a criminal charge when there's nobody there to be able to prove it besides the camera. You know, you're not going to ask a camera in court, did you see this? You know what I mean? I know the footage is there, but given the technology of today, AI can change a lot of things and a lot of questions come up to play. So, and also, this is what happened in Kersey. misread that law into putting out those $340 fines because they read it as, oh, we can charge this as if a patrolman was there. We don't want to create that. So that's why we're doing this, and I urge an aye vote.
Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much to my co-prime sponsor for the opportunity to join him in this important bill. You know, I really do want to emphasize what he said as it pertains to some of the testimony that we heard. I served on the city council for five years, and so I absolutely understand the impact of having drivers that are speeding through your community. and I also know that there are tons of tools that local governments have in order to improve roadways for both drivers and pedestrians and to change behavior. And I want to be clear that nothing in this bill prohibits a local government from placing an officer, a traffic enforcement unit, at any designated area where there are continually issues with speeding. The issue that we have is somebody speeding through an area and then automatically receiving a notice that they've been charged with a misdemeanor in the mail. Like that, in my mind, is not appropriate. You know, I also think that if an AVIS system is deployed and regularly identifies excessive speeding issues in an area, then that really is an opportunity for the city council to have a conversation with their public works department, with the community, to really determine what is the best solution for this community in this area that continues to be problematic. And so I don't know that the amendment requests that we're hearing from CML are necessarily something that we see as a responsible solution in terms of moving forward, but I do appreciate the continued conversation with them. I would ask for an aye vote. I think that this is a very important cleanup bill that ensures that the law that was passed a number of years ago isn't being abused. it sets reasonable and appropriate fines for people that are speeding and really will go a long way I believe in terms of changing behavior. Thank you.
Vice Chair Stewart. Thank you Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 152 as amended to the committee on the whole with a favorable recommendation.
Second. Moved and seconded. Comments before voting committee. And remembering we are not judish.
Representative Brooks. I believe I remember being told keep it pithy at one point. So I will not go judiciary on you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sponsors. I agree with some of what this bill attempts to do from the administrative improvements, signage, and capping of fines. I'm in support there. Yeah, it's interesting. I really appreciate the discussion around local government. because at the end, you know, we're going to vote our districts and we're going to vote what we feel is important for our districts. You know, it's funny, in policing in my district, you know, we're advancing a lot more use when it comes to LPRs and flock. But that's really more on the apprehension side of law enforcement, not necessarily the deterrent side, because we stay away, very far away, from any sort of automated camera ticketing system. That is not the identity of our municipality. It works for us, and I understand that. And despite some of what this bill does do when it comes to cleaning things up, it still expands those automated systems over good old-fashioned visible policing and good old-fashioned traditional due process laws. So for those reasons, I'll be a no today.
Representative Paschal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to bring it from a little bit from the opposite direction. I am, as someone who got hit by a car going 40 miles an hour as a pedestrian, I realize the seriousness to somebody's life when they get hit by that high of a speed. Also, my municipality has had high increases in collisions, crashes with pedestrians and bikes over the last few years, and that's growing. and I understand the concern of a human being not being there in order to put a criminal charge on someone, although I do want to remind people that humans are not very good witnesses. The data is probably more reliable out of the Avis, but not necessarily, and I understand that. But I just would really encourage you to keep working with CML and maybe find some kind of a middle ground there of not, you know, saying no, we're not going to use it at all. And so I'll be a yes for today, but I really would like to see you guys keep working on that because over 25 miles is a lot over the speed limit. If you're in a 25-mile zone, it's double. Even in a 75-mile-an-hour zone, it's 100 miles. So it's very serious, and I think we need to take it seriously. Thanks.
Thanks, committee. Thank you, bill sponsors. I will just say as the person who ran Senate Bill 200, it is law, but it did need attention and there were abuses and it needed cleanup. There were gaps. I think the revenue piece, I'm very grateful you're addressing it. the signage and the notice, key critical components. This concept of police presence also, the whole point behind some of these photo enforcements is that it frees up law enforcement to go after folks and to be more in community and deploy ways that will make community safer in other ways. It's not flock, so I think those distinctions are important. And at the bottom line is it improves safety, so I'm pleased to vote yes. and Mr. Gravy, please call the roll.
Representatives Basenecker.
Yes.
Brooks.
No.
Garcia Sander.
Yes.
Jackson.
Yes.
Lindsey.
Yes.
Wynn.
Yes.
Pascal.
Yes.
Phillips.
Yes.
Richardson.
Yes.
Sucla.
No.
Velasco.
Yes.
Vice Chair Stewart.
Yes.
Madam Chair.
Yes. That passes 11 to 2. Congratulations. You're on your way to Committee of the Whole. Committee, doubtful when we meet again, maybe never. So, but we'll have a little, some sort of informal gathering on the floor on CNABA or out on the balcony or something like that. But thank you for your attention all session. Thank you.