Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 069

Amen. The House will come to order. Today, the Pledge of Allegiance will be led by David Goldstein, North Glen High School, North Glen, Colorado, son of Representative Lori Goldstein. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Shebo, please call the roll.

And Madam Speaker Here

Madam Majority Leader.

Members, you have heard the motion from the majority leader that the journal be approved as corrected by the chief clerk. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Members, announcements and introductions. Committee chairs.

Rep. Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Colleagues, Finance Committee will be meeting at 1.30 in room 112 to hear three bills. Your calendar says four, but it's only three bills. And the order we're going to go in is 1206, Senate Bill 118, and then conclude with House Bill 1289. And I would note for the folks who want to testify on 1289 that the sponsors are carving out through an amendment the sales tax on gold and silver. So if you're going to come to committee and testify about how much you dislike the piece on sales tax on gold and silver, I urge you to know that your voice has already been heard. Thank you.

Thank you. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to remind everybody, an important reminder, it's about food, it's about lunch, it's about agriculture, so make sure you listening The Rocky Mountain Farmers Union would like to invite all of us to the legislative drive event today from 11 to 1 o at the Knights of the Columbus Hall So if you guys are hungry, you want to go talk to some great farmers and ranchers, make sure to show up between 11.30 and 1 at the Knights of Columbus for the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union drive-in. Thank you. Representative Lukens.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, House Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources Committee will meet at 1.30 to hear two bills, House Bill 1323 and House Bill 1310. Also, tomorrow and all this week is celebrating Colorado Agriculture Week and Day tomorrow, and there's going to be an incredible mural up. Representative McCormick, one moment, please.

Representative McCormick. Thank you, Madam Speaker. there will be a mural celebrating agriculture for the United States and Colorado's 250-150 anniversaries. In the East foyer, this mural has been created by Thomas Detour Evans, and the mural unfolds as a visual narrative from the left to the right, designed to spark imagination and highlight the interconnected systems that sustain agriculture across our state. So I invite all of you to visit on the first floor in the east foyer sometime this week to take a look at that and enjoy that artwork and remember that tomorrow is colorado agriculture day and i would like to turn it over

Thank you. Representative Bradfield.

Members, can I have your attention, please? Representative Bradfield.

Thank you, Representative. Please proceed.

Representative Kelty.

Representative Bradfield. One moment, please.

I'll see you next time. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to proceed out of order for third reading.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 43 until March 24, 2026.

Senate Bill 39 by Senators Snyder and Pelton Beals, the representatives of Bay Senecker and Taggart, concerning the administration by the Fire and Police Pension Association of Disability and Survivor Benefits. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 39 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes.

With 63 I, one no, and one excuse, Senate Bill 39 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Froelich, co-sponsors.

close the machine Mr Schiebel please read the title to House Bill 1311 House Bill 1311 by Representatives Duran and Carter also Senators Bright and Snyder concerning the use of a bond in lieu of retainage and construction contracts Madam Majority Leader

Representative Gonzalez.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1311 on third reading final passage.

Yes.

With 55I-901 excused, House Bill 1311 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Madam Majority Leader.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Froelich, how do you vote?

Representative Froelich votes yes. Please close the machine.

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1305. House Bill 1305 by Representative Lukens, also Senator Roberts, concerning enhancing access to inpatient behavioral health by aligning state and federal statutes. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1305 on third reading and final passage Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Froelich how do you vote Yes

With 64 ayes, 0, no, and 1 excused, House Bill 1305 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Madam Majority Leader.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Froelich, how do you vote?

Representative Froelich votes yes. Please close the machine.

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 50. Senate Bill 50 by Senator Marchman and Bright, also Representative Joseph and Soper, concerning certain disclosures of policies that a child care center must provide to the caregivers of children being served at the child care center.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 50 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 50 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Speaker pro tem.

With 56I, 8 no, and 1 excused, Senate Bill 50 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Madam Majority Leader.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Froelich, how do you vote?

Representative Froelich votes no. Please close the machine.

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1186. House Bill 1186 by Representatives Mabry and Soper, also Senators Ball and Weissman, concerning the continuation of the regulation of bail bonding agents regulated by Article 23 of Title X, Colorado-Advised Statutes by the Division of Insurance.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1186 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1186 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

With 61 I, 3 no, and 1 excused, House Bill 1186 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

in the Department's 2025 sunset report. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1181

third reading final passage. Oh, thank you. Representative Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I heard this bill in committee and I want to thank the sponsors for accepting my amendment, but there was a lot of conversation about other amendments that needed to be exempt from this that is not protecting it. And I had signed my name on prior to introduction, but with that, because no other amendments were taken, I would like, I request that my name be removed from a prior introduction, even though I will support the bill, because there has to be protections for these people, but I just don't want my name as prior introduction. Thank you.

That is correct. as a prior to introduction, yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Froelich, how do you vote?

Representative Froelich votes yes. Hartsook Paschal Please close the machine.

Please close the machine.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for Senate Bill 21 to be removed from the special orders calendar and placed back on the general orders second reading calendar.

Madam Speaker, I move that the following bills be made special orders on March 23rd, 2026 at 1043 a.m. House Bill 1331, House Bill 1332, House Bill 1333, House Bill 1183, House Bill 1109, House Bill 1308, House Bill 1241, and Senate Bill 110.

Members, you have heard the motion.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1331. House Bill 1331 by Representatives McCluskey and Caldwell, also Senators Coleman and Simpson, concerning modifications to legislative

And the Appropriations Committee report. Oh, yes. And the Appropriations Committee report. To the Appropriations Committee report. Members, we did move in appropriations a roughly 400,000 general fund reduction and a reduction in staffing by 3.3 FTE, I ask for your support of the Appropriations Committee report. Members. Thank you. That is so much better. No dad jokes are necessary. Thank you. Minority Leader Caldwell.

report? Okay. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of the Appropriations Committee Report. All those in favor say aye. Aye Those opposed no The committee report is adopted To the bill Speaker McCluskey Thank you Madam Chair Members this bill is very similar to the bill that we carried last year to suspend committees

Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the Speaker's point, just because we don't have the formal committees, I certainly encourage all of our members to continue working with different stakeholders on these issues that you would normally be sitting on in committee. And it's important work that we all do. It's just not in the form of a formal committee. Saves $400,000. And so I certainly encourage it. Again, this is very similar to a bill that passed last year, which, by the way, was unanimous. And so hopefully we will have unanimous support again this year. Thank you.

thank you madam chair i think it important to explain why i will be a no on this bill i understand that we are in a fiscal predicament and that we have to find cuts and i appreciate that the legislature is leading the way and trying to find them that's always helpful to leave by example. That being said, I am not in agreeance with the determinations that were made. Some of these committees that are being suspended, I believe, are of greater import than some of the committees that are being continued. Let's just take, for instance, the Colorado Youth Advisory Council Committee. That committee is being continued over the Water Resources and Agricultural Review Committee, the Transportation Legislation Review Committee, the Pension Review Committee, Tax Simplification Committees, Colorado Jail Standards, Juvenile Justice, Behavioral Health, Health Insurance, American Indian Affairs. Despite the fact that it is my understanding that COIAC, the Colorado Youth Advisory Committee, costs more than some of these other committees combined. So if it is true that the Colorado Youth Advisory Committee cost the state $50,000 and we look at the fiscal note and begin to add up some of these other committees, we could get two other committees for the price of that one. There is a committee that roughly costs, I don't know, $14,000 $15,000, quick math. Others that costs $20,000 25, 7,300, 2,300. We could get multiple other committees, but it seems we're prioritizing this one. I don't share that prioritization. I think that these other committees dealing with water, dealing with prisons dealing with justice and health care tax that those are higher priorities than this committee related to our students And so for that, oh, and I should also note for the public, it is my understanding that that particular committee, the Colorado Youth Advisory Committee, we outsource that particular cost. It's a $50,000 consulting cost. So we pay a consulting firm. that then does this work. So even if we wanted to keep it, looking at other ways to structure that so we're reducing costs and keeping those costs in-house, I think that more conversation could have been had with respect to some of these decisions, and as a result, I will be a no vote.

I feel like we should have some theme music or something after you've been gone awake. welcoming you back. I'm back. Did you miss me? So I have some of the same questions on COIAC. When we're spending $50,000 on a singular on a singular lobbying firm or consultant, I guess, and that consultant is tied to the governor via the Gang of Four and we're spending $50,000 and that's their only and that's their only client is COIAC. And when you look at the expenses, it's all of the, it's all of the, it's all of the expenses of the adults. It's all of the expenses of them meeting with Phil Weiser. It's all of the expenses of them meeting with the different organizations around the state. So it feels more like COIAC is less of a student organization than a student front for an organization. And certainly they can have, I mean, defunding them is certainly not a matter of de-chartering them. They can, I mean, there are all kinds of high school clubs and things like that that go on without funding. And so I don't understand why we need to spend $50,000, well, minus $2,300 in order to keep COIAC going when they're bringing out some of the, it's certainly not critical legislation but it feels more like that they're just a front for a consultant group that is using a high school organization to feed them ideas for them to bring and put in to bring and then put into bills before us to say that this is for the children, I mean everything's got to be for the children and then not only that, but by the children. So I would like to see the defunding, and I do recognize that we renamed COIAC last year for the purpose of perpetual funding, but we have a budget deficit, and what we actually need to be doing is we need to be starting at zero. We need to be starting our budget at zero this year and working our way up instead of trimming around the edges. And right now, this is just trimming around the edges, and that is one, like my colleague mentioned, we can get two for the price of one. And as far as the value goes for COIAC, you know, fine. But there's lots of reasons for them to be engaged, to be accepted into that, effectively like an internship. But I feel like we're just paying a radical advocacy group to... Just paying them, paying friends of the governor, in order to put kids in front of them in order to bring bills from the children, supposedly by the children. So I would like to see that one removed also. And I'd also like to see, I'm a little bit surprised on this fiscal note, that for the ones that we have on here that are going to continue, Black Coloradan Racial Equity Study, I'm not sure what that is. It would be nice to have that discussion as to what we're talking about here, what we're talking about continuing to fund. Capital development, capital building advisory, Colorado Commission on Uniform State, Joint Budget Committee. So we need to those, I mean, Joint Budget Committee, Joint Technological Committee, Legislative Audit Committee, Legislative Council, Statutory Revision, Committee on Legal Services. It's just a really weird thing in here to see the community. The Colorado Youth Advisory Council lumped into that, and Black, Colorado, and racial equity study, which seems a little bit on the unconstitutional side since we're prioritizing according to race. So I would like to see a little bit more discussion on that as opposed to just we're going to let it go through. Representative Bradley. God, that's tall. Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy Monday, everyone. Hope you all had a great weekend. I need to speak about this, too, because I am on COIAC, and we met with COIAC, the good representative from El Paso, over the summer multiple times, and they had some great ideas, but we just don't have the fiscal ability to obligate these bills. These are some of the smartest kids I have ever met. I mean, their political advocacy and their ability to understand the law is amazing. They don't need a $50,000 consultant. They don't need overnight trips. Some of y'all just got in trouble for an overnight trip. We don't need that. We don't need overnight trips and spending taxpayer money for $50,000 to make sure kids do the political activism that the consultant wants. These are smart children with brains of their own. I don't understand why this is included in this. We consulted with them all summer long. They don't need a $50,000 consultant putting in their head what they should and should not do. Weekend, the rep from El Paso and I can meet with these kids. They don't need overnight trips. They don't need expensive meals. And in the same breath, we're cutting the Water Resources and Agricultural Review Committee. Do y'all's districts have problems with water? Because mine does. My districts have significant issues with water. It's the one thing I hear when I'm out campaigning. What are we doing about water? Well, we're going to get rid of the Water Resources and Ag Review Committee, which seems insane to me. For $50,000 that COYAC gets, we could add back probably three or four of these committees into here. I'd love to know why we're going to let a consultant get $50,000 in a fiscal budget year of $1.6 billion in debt where we're going to let someone come in and keep these kids under the umbrella when we need water resources in an ag review committee. I don't understand it. I don't know why we keep spending money like children with a blank debit card. This one needs to be cut, or at least, if you want to keep the committee, at least cut the that comes with it So let talk about the other ones The American Indian Affairs Interim Committee I don know that the Ute Tribe is going to be big happy with that They come here every day or every year after the State of the State, the Southern Ute and the Ute Tribes to talk about this. The Colorado Health Insurance Exchange Oversight Committee. We're running a lot of these carriers out of town. That should probably stay on there. Legislative Inside Advisory Council Review Committee Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning Tax Policy Maybe with all the fees and enterprises, we just don't need them anymore because we just label taxes as fees so that that doesn't even matter anymore Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning the Treatment of Persons with Behavioral Health Disorders in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems Why is that being taken off on the chopping block? the treatment of persons with behavioral health disorders in the criminal and juvenile justices. Don't we come up here all the time and talk about how we're not treating kids and juvenile that have behavioral needs the right way? Have you all looked at all these being cut? Look in the fiscal note. Follow along. The Pension Review Commission and Subcommittee. The Legislative Oversight Committee for Colorado Jail Standards. Our governor just said we needed another jail. he's begging all of us to do another jail. So the Pension Review Commission and Subcommittee, the Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force, the Transportation Legislation Review Committee, and the Water Resource and Ag Review Committee. Did you guys know in rural Colorado that we're repealing that committee? Rural legislators, do we know? Do we have a water problem in the state? We have a big water problem in the state. That one deserves to stay on. We don't need $50,000 to pay a consultant when we're in a fiscal crisis right now. This seems silly. We have a safety clause on this bill because we don't want to let the people petition about which committees are being taken off and which committees are staying on. that people don't deserve to be able to petition that? It's insane to have a safety clause on this. But you guys need to look over this and see what you're in agreement with that's getting chopped and what stays on. Because $50,000 in a fiscal year that we're having right now is a lot of money. And I don't know why we keep allowing things like that to continue to go through. Are you speaking? So I will be a no on this bill. Thank you. Representative Sucla.

Speaker McCluskey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate our conversation today, and I just want to lift up a couple of things. There have been commentary about the Colorado Youth Advisory Council, the Hugh McKean Colorado Youth Advisory Council that was established in statute as a way for the legislature to engage with our youth across the state. Students participate based on their Senate districts. We do continue to get very positive feedback about that educational experience and opportunity for students. And I would emphasize that last year the Executive Committee brought forward a piece of legislation to suspend COIAC, but at the will of the Senate and the House in a bipartisan way, we reinstated that committee. We have eliminated that committee's ability to run any legislation or make recommendations to the legislature on legislation, but it was the will of both the Senate and the House, the 75th General Assembly, the individuals who are representing here and in the Senate who wanted that particular committee back. And out of deference to those conversations last year, the Executive Committee brought forward an ongoing commitment to COIAC. I also want to lift up the conversations that we are having, thank you, Representative, about water in this state. The Water Resources and Agricultural Review Committee, as well as the TLRC, the Transportation Committee, both of those committees are suspended beginning July 1 for the interim. Those two committees happen to be year-round committees, not interim committees. So they do have an opportunity to have one last meeting before this fiscal year ends. Certainly they are allowed to convene during the legislative session, which would be in January of 2027. And I appreciate coming from the Western Slope our concerns about water, suspending both of these committees. but I want to emphasize again that just because the committee is not meeting does not mean that the work or ongoing committee, ongoing meetings cannot happen. Really appreciate the dialogue and thank you for your support.

Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do understand it seems in our budget issues, it seems kind of silly to even be talking about $50,000 because in a $50 billion budget, it really doesn't even show up. But we're talking about principle here. We're talking about what we should be doing is we should be starting from zero. And I think Hugh as a fiscal conservative would understand that So I do understand that you know you put somebody name on it and it becomes a committee of perpetual funding And I do note that this bill does not give money to any committee, but it specifically takes from some. And I think we need to balance that. And when I look at COIAC, when I look at that, you know, we're talking about committees that their work and ongoing efforts that they can continue. Defunding COIAC is not something that would stop their work. They can still meet. We've got volunteers that are willing to work with them. It just means that maybe they don't have the funds for a, you know, overnights and, you know, where they can, you know, I guess be lobbied themselves like some PACs. So we have, we just have a limited amount of money. That's it. So I move L-001 to House Bill 1331 and ask I said it to be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So what this does is it just moves the COIAC, the funding from COIAC, from one that is continuing to meet to one that is suspended for funding into the other column. So it's just moving one from one column into the other. We had this meeting last year, as the speaker said, that it was the will of the House and the Senate, but it was also the will of the House and the Senate to create a $1.5 billion deficit, along with $3.5 to $4 billion worth of certificates of participation, along with blowing through a $4 billion surplus. So at some point, yes, the will of the House and the Senate, but the will of the House and the Senate is to greatly overstretch the wallets of the people. So this is just a place to deal with that. And again, this money largely goes to one contractor who does, when you look at the expenses on there, they're primarily, if not all, for that one contractor to meet, to pay that lobbyist, basically, to meet with various state organizations. and then what the expenses for the kids are. So this is just taking that one out. We have two volunteers that are already working with them, said that the mission can continue, and we'll just move that over. So it doesn't mean that they can't meet. It just means that they're not going to have funding for overnights. They're not going to have the opportunity for overnights. So that's all. It's not delegitimizing them. It's not disbanding them. He's just saying we are in a budget crisis and we need to watch all of our pennies no matter how emotionally we are attached to certain funding. And this is one that we can do. And I think Hugh McKean, as a fiscal conservative, presumably that he would be okay with moving that funding away from one of the gang of four. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of this amendment I mean if we took off $2,300 for per diem and expenses I can't imagine what we're spending on per diem and expenses I'll look that up and get back to you on Third reading, $50,000, so there's still $47,000 funding this committee. I am telling you on the record that I will meet with these kids, these very smart kids, over the interim and cut the consultant out. We've got great bipartisanship representation on this committee, and there's no need in a fiscal crisis that we're having right now to still give $47,000. This just cleans up the language. Make sure we're cutting that out. We can still meet, still hear the needs of these kids, and then put more money maybe towards another committee and bring that on. So I urge an aye vote on this amendment.

Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. for all the reasons that Madam Speaker pointed out, you're going to have an opportunity to really have this COIAC debate down the road. Again, this bill does not address that. It actually cuts money. And I just appreciate the newfound interest in interim committees, considering a lot of people vote no on those bills that are brought forward anyway. So, you know, refreshing to see that we care about interim committees again and the legislation and recommendations they produce. Thank you.

Speaker McCluskey. I move House Bill 1332 to the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, last year we had quite a robust discussion about the Legislative Department Cash Fund. And because of some of our conversations as a body, we felt it important to bring forward legislation to both repeal how the legislative department cash fund exists in statute and reassign both the purposes of this department cash fund for the use of the General Assembly, make very clear both to the body and our public what these dollars are used for, and also take a moment to be able to transfer any excess funding out of the cash fund to help us with our budget gap this year. Very specifically, our bill ensures that we'll be able to provide a minimum of at least $12 million to the general fund effective June 30, 2026. It is possible given any other reversions that occur in fiscal year 2526 that that number could be as high as 13 or 14 million The bill does establish a cap of million as a fund limit This will allow for funding to be utilized for the broad list of purposes outlined in the legislation, as well as ensuring that we don't grow a balance that is not being utilized to the best of our abilities by funding essential services and programs in this state. I am pleased to be here with Majority Leader Duran. This was an executive committee bill, and I urge your support. Is there any further discussion?

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L1. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Amendment L1 is adopted. To the bill. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1332 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Come on, y'all. All those in favor say aye. Thank you. All opposed, no. All right. House Bill 1332 as amended passes.

Majority Leader Doreen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1333. To the bill. First off, I want to say thank you to the legislative management team, executive committee, and legislative council, and to the entire staff of every agency here at the Capitol who helped us do our jobs. This is the annual budget request for the ongoing operations of the General Assembly and the service agencies that comprise the legislative branch based on current law, and I ask for a yes vote.

Say any further discussion. Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1333. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. House Bill 1333 passes.

in accordance with the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act and in connection therewith, implementing the recommendations contained in the 2025 Sunset Report by the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Well done, George. Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1183 and the Agriculture Committee Report. To the Committee Report. In committee, we ran amendments to ease concerns from the breeders to provide an appeal process, as well as some amendments to help shelters with their holding periods, and I ask for a yes vote. Is there any further discussion on the Ag Committee report?

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the renewal of the Pet Animal Care Facilities Act. It's up for reauthorization this year, and it serves a critically important function in our state and one that is a model for the rest of the nation. As you all know, Colorado is a very pet-friendly state. About 65% of households in our state have pets, from fish to reptiles, birds to small mammals, dogs, and cats. and it was one of the first programs in the nation to protect both these animals and the humans who purchase or adopt them. So PACFA regulates boarding kennels, breeders, dog daycares, groomers, rescues, retail stores, and shelters, and the purpose of this particular regulation is to prevent and mitigate the spread of disease, protect animal welfare, and protect consumers. And the history of this act came about, just a little history for all you history buffs, after a woman in Greeley died in 1957 after contracting psittacosis from a pet parakeet. So this program helps protect human health and animal health. It's housed in the Department of Agriculture under the Division of Animal Welfare. It has a member advisory committee, and with this legislation, there were several recommendations brought forth by Copper, and as you heard in Ag Committee, we did amend some of the recommendations, and we ask for your aye vote on the bill.

Assistant Minority Leader Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, this year's PACFA sunset, I really learned a lot. I was actually, I ran an audit on PACFA, which I think is important because there's so much information and misinformation out there. One thing I will say that I learned through this whole PACFA discussion is we talk about, you know, how many dogs that have to be put down in this state. And unfortunately, we import a massive amount of dogs from Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and we're flooding our system. And we're making it hard for those shelters, no-kill and kill shelters, to be able to provide for these animals. And we can't even take care of the dogs we have in this state. So I know that I've had many discussions with folks in this building. I've had discussions with the sponsors of this sunset about next year really getting the heart of this problem and trying to solve this issue. I think that's one of the most contentious things that we talk about when we talk about this. and i think that the citizenry needs to be aware is as if they're truly concerned about the animals in this state protecting these animals and make sure they're fostered out to good homes for them we need to quit importing dogs into this state and then being upset that we have to put dogs down at the end of the day i think it the responsible thing to do and i pretty sure next year that it will be tackled in this building so i will still be a no vote on this there are some reasons i can get behind it i want to see what the audit does say but i understand your mission and what you trying to do and hopefully next year we can get there on some of this so thank you for bringing me aware of this situation appreciate you

So, again, there's a lot of concerns with this, so I'll be a no vote. Is there any further discussion?

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us, This is the passage of House Bill 1183 as amended. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and House Bill 1183 as amended is passed.

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1109 and the Health and Human Services Committee report. To the committee report. So I'm just going to talk about the bill. This bill is a study to, let me back up, let me say this. For decades, the deaf and hard of hearing community have been asking for protections regarding interpretation services. This is whether it's legal, medical, in the educational setting. There is quite a bit of evidence out there of wrongdoing and harm in these spaces. And in order for us to get a better understanding, we need to have an official study of this harm and what we need to do to move forward. So we are asking for this study, and I will turn it over to my co-prime.

Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Health and Human Services Committee report. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The committee report is adopted to the bill.

Is there any further discussion?

Amendment L-5 has been properly moved and is now displayed. You can continue, Representative.

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just got a slew of amendments right before this bill came up. So at this point, because I have not had time to speak with stakeholders, I ask for a no vote.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L5. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed, no.

The no's have it, and Amendment L5 is lost. To the bill.

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to share that there are deaf and hard of hearing folks all across Colorado, ones that are not actually able to attend the school for the deaf, hard of hearing, deaf blind. And this study will help us to implement interpreters across the state, especially in rural areas.

The amendment has been moved and is displayed. Please proceed.

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask for a no vote on this amendment. Cutting back the budget, this money comes from an enterprise. This is how the deaf and hard of hearing enterprise, they would like these funds allocated. So true stakeholder engagement there. We trim this back. Do you know who gets hurt? Rural communities, folks in rural Colorado that are deaf, hard of hearing, folks in rural Colorado that need interpreters. No.

Representative Bottoms. Thank you, Chair. I would be very open to this $350,000 going to anywhere in the state of Colorado that actually is going to do something for the deaf community. We can build a facility in some of the rural communities. We can fund something. I don't have a limitation on where the $350,000 goes to. My limitation is why are we spending it on a study that does nothing? Let's actually care about the blind community. Let's put the money into the blind community. Let's help the blind community. Let's put teachers. Let's put something. Let's renovate something. And it doesn't have to be the one in Colorado Springs. That's just the oldest, the most established one, the original one, and the one that needs the most help. But let's put it anywhere. Studies do nothing. We've been trying for at least the last three years that I know that I've been in this building, we've been trying to get funding for the deaf community. and every time it gets voted down or it gets included in something else where the money doesn't actually get to the deaf community. This is $350,000 that is going to be wasted on a study that accomplishes nothing. Why don't we take that same money and actually help the deaf community? I don't understand this. It's just another weird thing we do in this building where when we know something is a need, We do a study to tell us if it's a need. And then the study sometimes says, no, not a need. But we all know it's a need. Why don't we just put the money where it is needed? Nobody in the deaf community is asking for a study. The deaf community wants the resources. They want the help. I am in this community. I'm talking to them all of the time. They don't want to study. They want somebody to fix a bathroom for them. They want somebody to make sure that they have some kind of teacher help, teacher pay, any of that kind of stuff. We've got to stop faking with these studies. They mean nothing. Let's put the money where it's needed. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. We heard this in committee. The deaf community came forward and said that this is posing a problem and posing a threat. Colorado currently recognizes interpreter certifications but does not license them. That is the whole crux of the bill. Well, again, listening to all the people that came to testify said this is a problem. So we know it's a problem. I don't understand why we're going to spend $350,000 to find out that this is a problem. I agree with the representative from El Paso. Let's build some schools in rural Colorado. Let's help the actual community versus a study that cost $350,000, which could be given back to this community. They came. They said it's a problem. We know it's a problem. Why do we need a $350,000 study? Let's give back to the people who want and need, especially in rural Colorado, what $350,000 would give. Why do we keep spending money like we have it? We don't. We are $1.6 billion in debt. If you're going to raise this money, at least put it back to the community and not a bunch of consultants that are going to get paid astronomical numbers to say what the deaf community already knows, is that this should not be happening. Stop the study. Stop giving consultants the money that this state does not have and end the madness. Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the communication services for the people with disabilities enterprises was created by House Bill 25-1154 and funded through the telephone disability access surcharge, which is currently $0.08 per line per month, and the prepaid telephone disability access charge, which is $0.08 per transaction. The bill increases state fee revenue to the Colorado Division of Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and the DeafBlind Cash Fund to cover the estimated cost of the study. All right, so the sponsor said that this is the money for the deafblind community, but this is money that comes from the citizens of Colorado. And what we have is we have the council staff is required to estimate the fee impact of bills that create or increase any fee collected by the state agency. These fee amounts are estimates only. Actual fees will be set administratively by the enterprise and the Department of Regulatory Agencies based on cash fund balance, program costs, and the number of phones subject to the fees. So one problem I have with this bill is that there is somewhat of an aspect of a blank check in here. These fees amounts are estimates only. So this $350,000, estimate only. Estimate only. What are the fees going to be? Estimate only. And that's where we have a problem. Because a fee is a tax. it really doesn't matter how you it doesn't really matter how you slice it it is a tax adding on is creating a new tax calling it a fee just makes it a trans tax it's a tax that identifies as a fee it's still a tax the table below identifies the fee impact of this bill not subject to TABOR. So I ask for an aye vote on this because this bill should not be coming to the floor with estimates only It should be coming to the floor with a hard budget a hard no knowing the max that this is going to be spent not just giving an enterprise an authorization to raise fees so that it can do a study so that it can make whatever determination it's going to make. Generally, predetermined conclusions are what these are all about. So I agree with my colleague, why don't we just spend the money on something useful instead of a study. So I would like to see the bill have a lot more rigor put to it, like how much this is actually going to cost, not estimates of how much this is going to cost, but how much it's going to cost. Representative Stewart.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-7? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L7. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no.

Amendment L7 is lost. To the bill, Representative DeGraff.

Amendment L-8 has been moved and is now properly before us. Please proceed.

Is there any further discussion?

Thank you, Madam Chair. does not limit what they can do. It just says what they can do needs to be approved by the body. So if this bill carves up something and says the community can do something that doesn't require this body and it doesn't require something in the terms of separate legislative authorization, through the whole rulemaking process where things just go from rulemaking into legislation that that is a big problem. And so the community should not be able to impose regulation on the rest of society without having it come through this body. That's just this body being sloppy. That's just this body being...

and I don't assign any motive to that, but I think it's unprofessional of this body when we outsource regulatory you know any sort of regulatory authority So I think that needs to be maintained in this body This bill just establishes that, that nothing is going to be imposed on the citizens of Colorado without having gone through this body first. No matter how much it would be, we would love to have it just all streamlined and go right through that it actually comes through this body. That's the job of this body. So this body should consider anything that is going to be regulatory in nature, that it should come through this organization, through the House, through the Senate, and make sure that we consider all aspects of it, not just imposing good intentions on the citizens of Colorado because it makes us feel good.

Aye.

No.

I move L-006 to House Bill 1109 and ask that it be displayed.

Okay. Okay, so page four, after line 15, inserts, or just before the other one would have inserted to ensure that we maintain regulatory authority, since we've already ceded budget authority on this, and really there's no caps, just estimates. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to create the presumption in favor of occupational licensing or regulation, and any recommendation for licensure must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the unregulated practice poses a clear and present danger to public health and safety. Right, so it's easy just to say, well, we think that there should be licensure around signing. And licensing, licensure, is generally limiting, not just better. There's the idea that if you have a license, it's going to be better. But you're also going to limit the amount of people and the number of people that can do the job. So before we go into licensing and pretending like that's going to make the situation better, we need to look at whether for the purpose of licensing that the unregulated practice of translating sign would pose a clear and present danger to public health and safety. Now, I am not sure how that would happen, but we should give, that should have the, the sponsors should have the opportunity to prove that if the, if the, demonstrate that, if that is going to come back to this body as a licensure requirement before we just impose that. so I ask for an aye vote.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-6. All those in favor say aye.

The no's have it. Amendment L-6 is lost. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1109? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1109 as amended. All those in favor say aye.

House Bill 1109 as amended passes. Mr Schiebel please read the title of House Bill 1308 House Bill 1308 by Representatives Basin Eckern Woodrow also Senators Amabile and Ball concerning lot splitting approval by subject jurisdictions Representative Woodrow.

Representative Basinecker, oh, I'm sorry, Speaker Pro Tem Basinecker.

The amendment has been moved and is now properly displayed. Please proceed.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us, it's the adoption of Amendment L9. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed, no. Amendment L9 is adopted to the committee report. Okay. Representative Richardson.

That was to the committee report. Amendment L-10 has been properly moved and is now on the Jumbotron. You can proceed.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Representative Woodrow.

Representative Richardson.

Again, we're asking for a no vote on this. I want to respond to the phrase that's been used a few times, predetermined outcome, because I think it actually captures the current process perfectly in terms of how folks aren't able to use their private property rights to split their lot via objective standards. That's what's happening at present. The predetermined outcome is the present process. To the contrary, what this bill seeks to do is have objective standards by which a local government would approve or deny those lot splits. And that, quite frankly, is anything but a predetermined outcome, but rather it gives clarity to the private property owner and the local government alike when it is appropriate to split a lot and when it is not. And so I think we need to be clear on what happens at present and what is predetermined versus adopting an objective standard which would allow a local government to make a different and better decision and as a private property owner allow you to be able to split your lot if it's something that fits those standards. So we would ask for a no vote on this amendment. Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just for the record, I really do appreciate the consideration that the good representative from Albert Adams, Arapaho, Cheyenne, El Paso, Kit Carson, and Lincoln Counties is giving to this bill. None of those counties are subject jurisdictions under this bill, as none of them are in an MPO. We ask for a no vote.

Just to correct the record, I represent part of Aurora as well within an MPO and well over 1,000 folks.

Seems if we're going to talk about, and I know the sponsors on previous bills have lamented about local control and then this is the wrong kind of local control. But when we're going to start telling them that they shall, we're removing local control. So I think that they shall consider, and the dimensions of this, 2,000 feet or greater, which when you consider the setbacks required, you start to look at, and then you start to split that. Then you're talking about basically being able to put not even an actual home, but when you have a 30 foot instead of even a 40 foot, when you have a 40 foot by 50 foot lot, which would give you 2,000 square feet, and then you divide that, you know, a 40 foot by 50 foot lot, and then you put a 30 foot setback on that, and then you have 10 foot easements on the back, basically you have room for a shed. So if you're going to have this, and again, we'll hear from the sponsors saying that we're complaining about local control and that this is the long sort of local control. But ultimately what this bill does is it allows the state, for the purpose of subdividing lots, to violate en masse the contracts that the citizens of Colorado have signed with their neighbors, with their communities, with the state itself. So it's great to give them the opportunity to do this in places where they need to, but if you start saying shall, it's no longer an option, it's a mandate, it's no longer local control, it's state control, and if there's anything that this state has recognized, is that anything that comes out of Denver is generally a bad idea.

Aye.

Aye.

Yeah, gotcha. Yeah, check. All right.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll talk briefly about what this bill does. But really, at the end of the day, this bill offers a modest but important step forward that we can use to help address our housing crisis here in Colorado, particularly among the barriers that we continue to see in the home ownership space. In the last several years, Colorado has gone from being a state where owning your own home was relatively achievable to one where the most expensive states in the country. By contrast, years ago, we used to build about 40% of our housing stock as starter homes. Today, it is around 9% of our starting stock as starter homes. That is because, quite frankly, that we make decisions at the local level which prohibits or otherwise disincentivizes smaller homes from being built in neighborhoods where they would naturally fit. Part of that story, though, as well, is due to the cost of the land, which can account to up to a third of a home's value, which has been rising steeply. In fact, residential land prices have increased six times faster than inflation over the last decade. and by requiring every house to sit on a large plot of land, we are artificially inflating the price of entry into home ownership. This bill pairs very nicely with the accessory dwelling unit law that this legislature passed in 2024. Allowing homeowners with ADUs to divide their lots and sell their ADU as a separate home would simply create more starter homes for Colorado families and new home ownership opportunities for people who want to buy a home but cannot afford it. The bill would take effect starting December 31, 2027. and that we have made some amendments in committee to clarify some of the standards that can be applied. Most specifically, it only applies to targeted locations, jurisdictions with a population of 1,000 or more within a metropolitan planning organization. Increasing density in existing walkable neighborhoods also reduces the need for costly infrastructure. This bill is about expanding housing choices. It empowers Coloradans to stay in their communities. It creates new opportunities, and we ask for your support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, where did the starter home go? A severe lack of modestly priced starter homes is shutting Coloradans out of opportunities for home ownership. As the New York Times recently stated, nationwide, the small detached house has all but vanished from new construction. Why is that? Well, there are often zoning regulations that require houses to have larger size lots. When there's a shortage of homes, land prices go up, and large lot requirements themselves restrict the supply of homes, creating a cycle of spiraling prices. This bill aims to alleviate some of that pressure, and it is all about deregulation. This bill creates a common-sense, straightforward, administrative process for homeowners to divide a single lot into two, unlocking small-scale infill, expanding homeownership, and creating new paths to affordability allowing lot splitting would provide a second major benefit aside from creating more starter homes It would create options for homeowners who want to downsize but also stay in their neighborhoods and communities The bill allows aging homeowners to stay in place, families to build wealth through multi-generational housing, and it offers first-time buyers access to those starter homes. It also promotes compact development, which encourages efficient use of infrastructure like water, sewer, roads, and it encourages sustainable growth and protection of our precious resources and land. It also, like my esteemed co-prime sponsor said, allows for building diverse housing types like urban cottages, accessory dwelling units, or duplexes. Let's build the type of housing that welcomes the young, protects the elderly, and allows Colorado to grow in a way that values Colorado's open space. Let's legalize smaller, more affordable homes. We ask for an aye vote.

Thank you Madam Chair I'm up here again I appreciate the bill sponsors because I went to them with a proposed two amendments and I want to just discuss what these amendments do and what my concern is so I move L012 to House Bill 1308 and ask for it to be displayed

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this just states that adequate roads must be constructed for fire services and other emergency services to sufficiently and safely access all new lots, since we're talking about splitting lots. I know the bill's sponsor said that this is already covered. I just want to make sure because a big part of my district is Sterling Ranch. And a lot of my constituents email me on and on and on about the limited access in and out of there. It comes onto my property off of Santa Fe. And I watch every day these parents that are trying to get their kids just to school how much it bottlenecks. So I did some digging. And it says that it can connect to Waterton Road and other future arterial links. And the bill sponsor said, well, this doesn't concern HOAs. HOAs, but Sterling Ranch is not an HOA. And so when I have people talking to me about how bottlenecked they are, I worry about things like the Marshall Fire and the Paradise Fire that kept people within their communities and basically burned alive. So there are, Titan Road is the main corridor. There are secondary and planned connections, including toward Waterton Road and internal collector roads. Emergency planning does assume more than one exit path, even if some are less direct. And Sterling Ranch, God bless them, was built with wildfire resiliencies. But the problem is the large number of residents relying on a few routes can lead to traffic congestion during a fast-moving fire. We just had a fire off of Santa Fe on my way home on Friday. It was backed up for miles because I don't know if someone threw a cigarette out or there was a downed power line but it's spread the grass because it's so dry just went up in flames and we have in sterling ranch rocksboro park which i'm going to take off of this because it is an hoa and this bill doesn't deal with that but there's about 1800 residents in sterling ranch estimated in 2026 about 3100 residents and they're going to do a planned build out up to 30 000 to 33 000 residents when complete. So they're still in the early growth. But what happens is 12,000 plus people combined already live in that corridor. And this could triple over time when Sterling Ranch continues to build out. So if you take emergency planning, two cars per household, that's about 6,000 vehicles. If we don't put Roxburgh in there, it's about 2,500. They're saying that one lane, 1,800 cars per hour, could equal an evacuation time of two plus hours. and so if there's a rapid fire moving through people aren't going to wait for their time to leave they are going to do what i would do i've been evacuated twice and i live right across the street they are going to panic and they're going to have gridlock and a massive fire coming through emergency services aren't going to be able to get in and out of there the people aren't going to be able to get in and out of there and they're going to rely on a two-way road which is titan road So all I'm asking with this amendment is to make sure there are adequate roads, because we're not seeing that. We're seeing that 30,000 more people are going to be put back there, but there's no plan in place for these people. And the constituents of Sterling Ranch have reached out to me multiple times. They need an evacuation route. It is not fair to split lots. So they're planning on 30,000. They could technically split their lots and put even more. I'm asking, I'm not arguing against the bill right now. I'm asking that the people in my district have a safe evacuation plan that is put into place via law to make sure that they are safe. And I ask for an aye vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a really, really important amendment and one that has been largely or completely neglected. This idea has been completely neglected in these processes of building, of creating the Colorado totalitopia, that we need to have all of, that we want to have everybody piled up on top of each other with no egress routes, with no parking anywhere near. So when laws from last year eliminate parking, and yeah, citizens of Colorado, Now, just remember that transit-oriented housing means your apartment complex can now build another apartment complex on top of the parking lot. You don't have parking. Where's that going to go? That's going to go on streets. What happens on the streets? Well, now you've got both lanes clogged up because we don't live in your 15-minute cities yet. We don't have that. Or when we do, then you have buses, and then you have these houses that are crammed so close together that the fire jumps from one to the other. and I think you're so focused on building Calcutta Rado because you think that everybody that, you know, the governor is all enthused about people living in three-story high in shipping containers that you forget that there is a whole, there are other aspects to this. We live in a high desert. We live in a fire-prone area. We have a lot of issues around this, and when we start cramming people together in these manors, without a specific focus on having egress routes, then that will work until it fails catastrophically. And at some point, it will fail catastrophically because you're not just doing this in a certain area. You're not just giving this. You're not just giving the county commissioners the option to do it. You telling them they shall split these lots They shall Why Because you think it a good idea Why Because we have record high numbers of vacancies across Colorado Denver Colorado Springs We have high numbers of vacancies, record high numbers of vacancies. So what do we need to do? We need to split those lots. What are those lots after they split? Well, basically, you can put a tiny home on them. How many people can live in there? There's really no because we got rid of arbitrary occupancy limits last year. Where do the cars park? Not on the driveway, not in the garage, because there's no parking lots required. How many people can live in there? No limit, because there's no definition to family, and arbitrary occupancy limits were eliminated. So we're not just talking about building denser. We're talking about just building people on top of people, and if you ignore this aspect, again, it will work until it fails catastrophically, and then you will have catastrophe. So I urge an aye vote on this, because this is an aspect in Colorado that is very, very non... I mean, it's happening all over the place. When they run these things, you get bottlenecks. You get traffic stuck. And if you have a fire, if people are having to evacuate for a fire, and then you double the number of houses, and then you make that so that there's no fire breaks in between them, and they start jumping from house to house, this bill is just another disaster in the making. I mean, for the housing, for the market, for, and now in this case, without this amendment for fire danger. So I ask for an aye vote on this amendment because this is an area of planning that the people who look at this will tell you is woefully, is generally completely overlooked. And you have to have this. You have to have multiple ingress routes and egress routes in order to move people out. They need to have the roads available. you're not going to be able to bring in enough buses to get everybody out in a timely manner from your 15-minute city. Representative Barone.

I want to ask the bill sponsor something here. I'm wondering if you can enlighten me a little bit on this. This amendment right here, fire services and other emergency services, Mostly that's taken care of by the counties according to property taxes and sales tax like that, right? So let me give you an example. If there's a 4,000 square foot lot that needs to be split into 2,000 square foot lots, and that property tax for that 4,000 square foot lot is, let's say, $5,000. When it gets split, now does it create two $5,000 square foot lots, or does it open the door for splitting the property tax? Of course, I know that's county, but I'm concerned that this bill might open the door for counties that want to get an extra $5,000 property tax on a smaller lot. I was wondering if you guys can help me out with that.

Representative Bradley.

Representative Bottoms.

Representative DeGraff

Representative DeGraff, let's not go down that road. That's not appropriate to make assumptions like that as to whether or not the state demographer's office is on drugs. Let's not make assertions like that.

Representative, I just want to remind you that we are still on the amendment.

You can talk about the bill in a minute.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-12. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. The no's have it. Amendment L-12 is lost. Aye. Representative Barone.

Amendment L7 is now properly displayed. Please proceed.

Speaker Proton Baisenekar. Thank you, Madam Chair. We request a no vote. There has been no request from our local government partners to have this change made. Were we to contemplate it, that would be in conversation with them. and through a stakeholder process, we ask for a no vote.

Sure, thank you. This is a bill that sat in the committee. came through and opposed it there and will still be in opposition and would ask for consideration to also oppose this. Really, for the reasons that have already been stated, overriding any sort of comprehensive master plan, these things are not just slapped together. You know, you don't just jigsaw together a comprehensive master plan. I had the honor, honestly, of sitting on Castle Rock's Planning Commission for a number of years. I had the honor of then serving as the chair of the Planning Commission for a number of years, and I understand how carefully considered these plans, these development plans are. They have been mapped out decades and decades before. They've been carefully planned to ensure that there is a feathering of density, that the areas that are higher density are more, you know, they're centralized closer to more commercial areas, industrial areas, and then as you start to get out further away from the core of the town to where people generally are buying the larger size lots, you know, those are typically the more expensive lots, and they have been sold that way, they have been developed that way there's a specific plan to them. And the zoning reflects this. The plans reflect this. And again, these are very carefully considered. In the case of Castle Rock, I would then also offer that we're swapping, let's say, for just a second, suspend disbelief and go with me being very much in favor of this, which I'm not. But let's say I were to change my mind and think this is a good idea. What I'm doing now in Castle Rock is I'm supporting the creation of yet another problem. Because Castle Rock is not a transit-oriented community. Castle Rock, by choice, has no connectivity whatsoever with Regional Transportation District. We were, at one point, part of the Regional Transportation District, and we opted out. for Castle Rock we were paying something like million a year from taxpayer money to get a couple of buses that came down to where the outlets are Decided that that really wasn a very good investment of taxpayer money and so we been on a bit of a transit island since then. So now we are contributing more towards the traffic on the roads because we don't have that connectivity. Again, these are decisions that can, not only can, but should be made locally. And this would be compounding a problem that we're trying to fix with other legislation. So why would we want to, at this level, create problems that make it more difficult for what we're trying to solve with other legislation? So I am going to always remain opposed opposed to kind of wadding up a local jurisdiction's comprehensive master plan and the time that they've put into that. And also saying to the folks that bought a large lot that it's okay now to have more neighbors. It's okay now to have more traffic and everything else that they specifically have tried to avoid by living in that part of town that has lesser density. So we're making a higher density where lesser density was originally the plan, the infrastructure behind it, and then yet again, the transportation problems that we're creating in certain communities that we're not considering with this bill are going to be exponentially more difficult. So I would ask for a no vote on this, I believe that there were some good amendments that were brought in an effort to try to work with making the bill just a little bit better. So overall, I would ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to ask for a no vote. on this also. I mean, I'm still trying to find where it's limited. I see in our sheet here that it's limited to metro planning organizations of a thousand people or more, but it's clearly a stepwise function to the entire state. So I think it's a bad idea for the entire state. I think it's a bad idea for the locals, whatever local it is. The local areas have disability. Now, I don't know where the state demographer gets its numbers, but they sure seem to be disassociated from reality. We have record numbers of vacancies. We have a birth rate that is only a fraction of sustaining. we have a housing we have homes growing at a rate faster than the population year after year after year and so to base this from the state level on 34,100 And that just makes me laugh in general 34 units per year That like saying 89 of all statistics are made up on the spot And they generally have a couple factors of decimal points in there for the false sense of accuracy 34,100 new units. That's a bogus number. I'm just telling you, from a math standpoint, that's a bogus number. That is a degree of confidence that is not supported and not supportable by the state demographer's office. I don't care what they're not smoking. I said not. I said not. existing the division of an existing residential lot resulting in the creation of one additional lot provides meaningful benefits provides that's a declarative statement provides meaningful benefits. what it also does is it devalues all of the property in the area it benefits one the developer who can now tap into all of the all of the means the infrastructure that is not stressed because the stress the infrastructure in that neighborhood for whatever municipality the Metropolitan Planning Organization unless they created a factor of safety in their planning. Normally, for civil engineering, I think it is about 1.5 percent. It's a lot lower for aviation just because of the weights involved. But usually you're going to have 1.5 percent. So if you have housing on a street and you build that capacity, you're not going to build it just for 100%. Say, well, each housing unit is going to be five. The average home is going to be five people on this street. And some will be a little bit more, some will be a little bit less, but we know that it's going to be on average five. And there's 100, let's say there's 100 homes on that main trunk line. Well, that's 500 people. and you would have a factor of safety up to about, maybe it could handle 750 if you used a 1.5% factor of safety. But now what you're going to do is by this, you are going to double that. And you're going to say on this trunk line, on this part right here, you're going to have 1,000 people. You're going to instantly go up to 1,000 people authorized on that line, Whether it's water, whether it's sewer, whether it's electrical. Oh, but wait, there's more. You got rid of occupancy limits last year. Oh, and you also got rid of any definition of family. So a single family home can now have anybody with whom you feel a kinship. So you walk down the street, you call somebody bro, you can move into the house together because you're kin. And they can bring their family in. And now instead of 100 homes with five people each, you could have 100 homes with 10 or 20 people each. And then you could split that lot. So that's 2,000. And then you could split that lot and you have 4,000. And then you have a factor of safety that was built to 750 homes. And that's just the math. Now at some point, that works. Till about 750. But every single time you divide that lot, and you could say, yeah, for the initial people that maybe built their house off to one side, and then you split this 2,000-foot lot, and then I'm looking here in the green pages, shall not apply a setback standard that requires setback from the lot line adjoining two lots created through a lot split. So now you can have two houses, and now you can build them side by side because now there's nothing in the middle. Or I suppose you just divide your house in half. And I don't know what version of SimCity was used to come up with these, what version of SimCity the governor is playing that comes up with these bills. Because the math doesn't support it. Because instantaneously you could go,

Okay, they're looking up, the sponsors are looking up to see what version of SimCity the governor is playing that he comes up with these bills.

so now you've rapidly you've basically instantly declared that you can you can exceed the factor of safety in this case by 400% and at some point there's not enough water there's not electricity and there's nowhere for the sewage to go. And I'm not sure what SimCity does about the infrastructure when you're playing SimCity and then you build all these things on top of each other and then you say, well, because now you could also build without restriction on height as long as it's less than 45 feet or something like that. You could build a triplex. You could stack it up three. Move in three shipping containers. Boom, boom, boom on each side. Six homes. And what are we looking at? We're looking at, I mean, just the math of it. Because I know everybody loves math. You're looking at a 2,000 square foot lot. That's 40 by 50. And then you can divide that into 20 by 40 to get 800 and 1,200. So 20 and 30. So you can get an 800 square foot and you can get a 1,200 square foot. Now, there's no setback in between, but typically on the outside there's going to be 10. And this said you're going to remove it, go down from 40 feet setback to 30 foot setback. So let's take 30 foot setback. Well, on that 40 foot deep lot, you have 10 foot. Now you're already on the back of your home. So maybe with a waiver, you can put a shed. a three-story tall shed because 2,000 square feet gets eaten up pretty quickly. Zero limits. Zero limits. Egress roots not really taken care of. I don't believe this is for because next year this won be enough homes because the state demographer is still going to be somehow not smoking something where they giving you the indication that we need 34 new homes every year When we have vacancies, we have businesses that are moving out. We just had a billion dollar industry move out. We have billions more moving out. they're going to take all of those homes with them. Why? And let's look at why we're doing this. Housing costs up 223%. Why are they up 223%? Well, because somewhere between 30% and 50% of the cost of a home is regulation. That comes out of this room. I'm talking to builders now. We've got the asbestos stuff. The asbestos, in order to raise $200,000 a year to help with lead paint mitigation, they're really cracking down on asbestos. And what has asbestos in it? Every sheet of drywall, every sheet of tar paper, and every shingle is now going to be required, if it's not your permanent personal residence, it's now going to be required to be treated as hazmat. That's going to add $20 to $40 million per year to the cost of houses. to drain on the economy. Could you fix that in this room? Yeah, we could fix that. I submitted an authorization to have a bill to fix that. Did it get approved? No. Because the governor can impose tiny houses on everybody's lot, and he can force from Denver, the bureaucracy in Denver, can force all of the counties that they shall divide. and there's going to be places that because they can instantly divide, they could take a $30,000 property, and they could subdivide it, and they could turn it into 220s. And boom. There's $40,000. There's $10,000 profit, a little bit something on the side for the politicians who are going to support this stuff because it all just comes back to Denver. All that money can just go to Denver because Denver now is going to impose all of its great ideas, all of its good intentions, onto the municipalities of Colorado. And subject jurisdiction. Holy cow. I mean, that just has His Excellency written all over it. Jurisdictions are not subject, they are not subjects of the General Assembly, nor the governor. The purpose of the government is to secure the rights of the citizens, not to treat them as subjects. That makes this bill not only a bad idea, but a disgusting idea. I don't know why. I'm not questioning motive.

You've crossed it a few times. I'm being really patient today. You're welcome. So the citizens of Colorado So our role on this side is to secure your certain self creator rights among which are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness On this side, and emanating from far, far below this chamber, you are considered subjects. You are considered subjects. This bill considers you subject. It's right in the middle. It's on page six. You are a subject. You'll do as you're told. You'll do as befits the excellencies of this room. and you will succumb to the arrogance of a government that has forgotten its charter. So I'm asking for a no vote on this bill. I'm asking for you to say no to the governor. I'm asking you to say no to SimCity, which is obviously not a really good high-quality version because it clearly did not deal with the sewer, the water, the electricity. It just showed everybody walking around saying everything is awesome, like the Lego movie. Just living the dream. Vote no on this bill. It's disgusting.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the representative for his comments. I just want to set some things straight for the record. The smallest lot size that can be split is 2,400 square feet, because in the bill, if one were to read it, you would see that it only lies, the smallest you can go is 1,200 square feet, so a 2,000-square-foot lot cannot be split. that subject jurisdiction is a term of art, and it frankly requires a lack of good faith reading to conclude otherwise. The good representative voted for my recent bill with Representative Luck, dealing with county assemblies and caucuses that also contained the term. He knows that no one is talking about subjecting citizens to anything. In fact, this bill actually allows people to do more with their own private property. The Declaration of Independence states life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the Constitution, which we all swore an oath to and we all love, and my good colleague loves the Constitution, says life, liberty, and property. And this bill actually honors individual property rights, right? That's what this is about, local governments not being able to tell individuals what they can do with their own property. I don't know why my good colleague is against that, but he apparently is. To set the record straight, Colorado's population recently exceeded six million people for the first time. Counties, we can only repeat this so many times, are exempted from the bill, so not sure where he's getting that from. Page seven of the bill, again, if you were to read it, starting at line eight, going through lines 14, it literally states that these jurisdictions can continue to apply and enforce local life safety codes, including building fire utility and stormwater codes. Sewage is included in that. I would note that vacancies are currently above average because we done really great work increasing supply the last several years and there actually a backlog filling those units It has nothing to do with some type of out migration In fact over the last year, Colorado's population not only increased due to a higher birth rate, it also increased by about 3,000 people because there was higher international migration than domestic out migration. And finally, to answer the good representative's question, on behalf of both bill sponsors, SimCity 4 was the most fun version, and it absolutely included electricity and sewer. Getting serious about this, folks, what the good representative fails to mention is that in opposing this bill and favoring a local government's ability to say no to private property owners, you may not split your lot. That is big government. It's big government on a local level, telling individual property owners who purchase their property, what they can and cannot do with their property. Just because government is on a local level doesn't mean it's small or not intrusive or can't interfere in the lives of private property. I'm sure folks know from HOAs and school boards and other small local governments can actually be highly intrusive. What this is saying is the state coming in and saying, you can't do that. This is the most local it gets. Private property rights trump all of that. And that's what we're here to defend, private property rights. It's almost weird to be in this position where someone from the minority party would be in favor of government being able to tell individuals what they can do with their private property, but that's where we're at. And so on behalf of myself and my co-sponsor, we urge an I vote on this bill. We urge an I vote to promote private property rights, an I vote to promote smart growth. The state demographer does a lot of work. Colorado is not shrinking in size, notwithstanding what you might have heard to the contrary. And insinuations that anyone might be on drugs, if they think as such, is frankly insulting. And while the good representative has every right to come up here and speak his mind, the truth matters. and at some point it should prevail. Thank you.

I think it is funny that the party of abolition of private property is pretending to defend property rights in this. This is not a defense of property. This bill is not a defense of property rights. This bill is a carte blanche, state-driven violation of contracts. Because what zoning is, is a contract. When you buy a house in a, say it's R1, you buy a house in an R1 area, and you say, this is the area that I want to live. And you buy a property in that R1. And then in order to facilitate a large number of people living together in a cooperative sense, everybody in that R1 area has an agreement as to effectively self-limiting on what they're going to do. will you have a contract with the city that says, I agree to abide in this area so that I can live in accordance with the requirements of the grid, of the sewer. I'm not going to, yep, I can't build a multiplex, multi-story multiplex on my property. And the bill here that I'm looking at says 2,000 square feet. feet. So when you enter into that contract, the purpose for entering into that contract then is you're saying that we are going to agree to live in proximity with each other as neighbors, and this is how we're going to do it. There's no, if you want to do what you're talking about, then you just create an area and you say the property size is all 1,000 square foot lots. And that is done in some areas. And it's 1,000 square foot lots, and the developer can develop in accordance with that. But the city and the municipality has not planned on these being in their master plan. And so if this was something about local control, you would say they can. But what you're saying in this bill is that the state shall violate every single zoning contract that has been purchased in the state of Colorado. This is a, and a contract is in effect property that you have entered into an agreement, that you have staked the value of your property, and now the value of your property is really, is going to go down when, say, there's a vacant lot on that street. And then all of a sudden they divide it. And then they divide it and they say, well, now you can build a 45-foot unit on there because the state demographer says we need to. So we clearly have some different ideas on where the population is going. And I'm not really sure how when I looked it up the other day that the business district has got a 40% vacancy rate in the business area. I'm not sure why they're vacant. because apparently people are coming into Colorado in droves. I'm not exactly sure what the international migration is, but I do know when I looked up the birth rate that it does not sustain our current population. And that's kind of across the other states as well. So this bill is an instantaneous violation of every single contract that the citizens of Colorado or in these certain municipalities of their subject jurisdiction, a term of art, in the subject jurisdictions have entered into. It is a violation of those contracts. This has completely voided them. Instead of saying, hey, you have a property and you have to have a 2,000-square-foot property, probably it was like that for fire coat. It was like that for water to make sure that you have enough land in order for the water runoff because you can't have a rain barrel more than 50 gallons. And so now what you're going to do is you're going to take all these houses, you're going to cram them into a small area. All that runoff is going to be, it's just going to be nothing but roofs. There's not going to be any drainage, not going to be any seepage, and all that water is just going to rush down and go out in storm drains. So, no, this is not, this is absolutely not a defense of property rights. This is a violation of the property rights of everybody that does not want to subdivide their property because it is going to devalue every adjoining property, every proximate property it's going to devalue. The party of the abolition of private property is not somehow suddenly interested in you and you being able to do with your property what you want They are interested in you living in a small house in a crammed in together municipality so that everybody can take the bus and sing everything is awesome on the way to work.

Happy Monday. Sure. I just want to be clear. Commercial vacancies are up due to work-from-home requirements, Zoom, and Google Meets. Words matter. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but zoning is not a contract. The primary difference between zoning laws and contracts lies in their authority, scope, and enforcement. Zoning is a public regulation enacted by local governments using their police power to control land use for the public good. contracts, including private covenants, conditions, and restrictions, or private agreements between parties as they relate to land, obviously involve the sale, but also the specific property use, and are often stricter than local laws. Ground coverage is covered by the bill. That was in the committee report. We urge everyone to read it, and I just want to say thank you, everyone. I know that these land use bills often evoke a lot of feelings about how a community should look. This bill honors private property rights by saying if you own a larger lot you have the ability to split it without jumping through too many hoops just an administrative process and yes the goal is to grow as a state in a smart strategic coordinated way that cuts down on vehicle miles traveled preserves water and other resources, and we urge an aye vote.

Thank you.

House Bill 26-1241 by Representatives Marshall and Joseph, also Senator Marchman, concerning the notice required to make a material change to a contract entered into with a health care provider. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you're paying attention, I am not Representative Joseph. I just wanted to put that on the record. I'm Representative Bradley.

No, Joseph's on the bill.

Please proceed. I just wanted to make sure that people were aware that it's been changed. So Rep Bradley's on the bill with Rep Marshall. And the reason I got on this bill is that there's been a lot of providers, one specifically from Rep Marshall's district, that whenever there is a material change in contracts revolving.

I need to move it.

Can you please move it? I need to move it. I caught myself, though.

Thank you. Hey, Representative, or Madam Chair, I move House Bill 26-12-41 and the committee report.

Thank you. I was so excited about this bill on this Monday morning. So this bill, under current law, if a health insurance has a big material change, there are providers not getting that change. so what that means for providers is like if there a reimbursement change or something that there a contractual change We want to make sure that the providers get that because then it can snowball If they change the reimbursement rates and patients don know it and providers don know it then we have a big problem So we just included email. Let there be email. and if you can't contact them or it doesn't happen via email, then let's add in an opt-out so that providers can choose to get mail that they then pay for if they choose to opt out of emails. I believe it's a win-win. This bill was amended in the committee, and I'll let Representative Marshall talk about that.

Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The committee report is adopted. To the bill.

The amendment has been moved and is now properly before us.

Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. There was some contention before we walked into committee from DOI and the governor's office regarding that this is going to fall on the carriers and increase costs to the carriers. It's a very fair amendment, which will not do that if the providers want to receive the mail versus e-mail, which is not a lot. but this ensures that every provider in the state of Colorado gets these material changes so that they can make do for their businesses and stay afloat in the state. Very fair amendment. We ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, again, we don't want to take a lot of time with this, but the doctor constituent that brought it to us, he had an issue where he was about $200,000 to $300,000 in the hole in his practice, couldn't figure out why, pulled the thread, found out. What if his major carriers had given him notice that they slammed down the provider rates? And he was like, well, when did you tell me about this? It's like, oh, well, we sent you a letter. It's like, when? Oh, it was there. Oh, we got certified mail. He owned the building where it was brought, and it was arrived on December 24, Christmas Eve, at like 4 o'clock, and he had shut down the entire building at noon. And they couldn even decipher who signed for this because it wasn sent to the doctor or the person who actually signed the contract So again notice to these people and this seems to have been a bigger issue that's why if you look at the Secretary of State's lobbying site, you will see all the medical providers in support for this. So we are just trying to ensure the providers do not get shafted without any problems. The large organizations that have whole administrative structures to be watching out for themselves, they can take care of themselves. This is for the small private practices, because if this stuff keeps continuing, we're going to be pushing out the small guys. So I ask that it be accepted. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a win for providers, patients, and the carriers. It's no cost to them. I'm so grateful that the representative from Douglas County was able to listen to me. It got contentious, pretty contentious at points. but I believe that this is the bill that should go forward as a win for all of us and really safeguard patient safety and financial responsibility. So I ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Mr. Schievel, please read the title of Senate Bill 110. Senate Bill 110 by Senators Brighton-Millick, also Representative Barone, concerning revision of public assistance final disposition expense terms. Representative Barone.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage. of Senate Bill 110. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Senate Bill 110 is passed. The committee will stand in a brief recess. Thank you. objection the committee will rise and report Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right.

The House will come back to order. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Representative Wilford. Members, you've heard the motion. There are amendments at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move the first Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Again, if we are looking at a study, colleagues, for House Bill 1109, we should be putting data. We should be putting quantitative, not just qualitative, the stories, because the stories were impactful in committee, but without the data, how do we relate that or correspond it with the resources needed or the impact that's happening? We talk about studies in this building all the time on how we want to look at the facts, how we want to look at the data. We talked about this in committee. It was very blunt in committee that I was bringing this amendment forth Committee was a couple weeks ago We had time to look at this and I can see why we wouldn want to put data with the stories to make this study stronger I urge a yes vote Further discussion

And Rep. Stewart, just to clarify, you're asking for a yes on the amendment.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of the Johnson Amendment, the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Froelich, how do you vote?

Representative Froelich votes yes.

The amendment is adopted. The question before us is the adoption of the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Members, please proceed to vote.

Representative Froehlich, thank you so much. How do you vote?

Representative Froehlich votes yes.

the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Majority Leader Duran Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until tomorrow Madam Majority Leader

Seeing no objection, the House will stand in recess until later today