House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs [Mar 26, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Representatives Bottoms.

Bradley.

Carter.

Espinoza.

Furet.

Krolick.

Buck.

Wynn.

Ricks.

Clifford.

Madam Chair.

All right. We have four bills on the agenda. We'll start with Senate Bill 47.

Representative Camacho, if you want to speak first, you can speak first.

Come on, guys. Wow, that was apparently a super big deal.

Representative Camacho. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, and thanks for the great introduction from my co-prime sponsor. So as Representative Phillips mentioned, this is a straightforward bill, but it's an important bill that ensures our election laws work as intended and firefighters have a fair and functional path to collective bargaining. Under current law, firefighters and their communities can petition to place a question on the ballot to allow collective bargaining under the Colorado Firefighter Safety Act. However, there's ambiguity in how a general election is defined, which can create confusion about when these questions can actually appear before voters. The bill clarifies that definition. Specifically, it ensures that the ballot questions related to firefighter collective bargaining can be placed on coordinated elections, including certain statewide general elections in odd-numbered years, consistent with the uniform election code. What this means in practice is simple. Communities that will have done the work, gathered signatures, engaged voters, and followed the law will have a clear and predictable opportunity to bring these questions forward. At its core, this bill is about fairness and access to the democratic process. Firefighters put their lives on the line for our communities every day. ensuring that they have a clear pathway to a vote on collective bargaining is a reasonable and responsible step this legislation again does not mandate collective bargaining it simply ensures that if you done the work collected the signatures and have community support you can get it onto the ballot So for that we ask for an aye vote Thank you very much Sponsors Committee Any questions

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Jimmy Allen. I represent more than 5,000 firefighters in the Colorado area. this not much to be said about a one-page bill that hasn't already been said but we're truly just trying to align language so everybody can agree on when we can ask the voters to collectively bargain with that being said a great bill vote yes and sorry for the snafu this morning madam

Representative Bottoms. Yes, sir. Thank you. I didn't catch your name, but are you part of the union?

Go ahead.

Any other questions? Representative Bradley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative, that's a good question. It doesn't change any of the previous law.

At a time when fires are a major concern throughout the state, and we just had one of my House District recently. I hope we're all going to support firefighters with this bill and I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I couldn't agree more. I think we are heading into a time in Colorado history where we're going to need firefighters more than ever. And this is an opportunity that we can stand up for them and provide them clarity for when they're trying to advocate for themselves. and I vote for that I urge you to vote.

Vice Chair Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26047 to the Committee of the Whole

Second.

okay thanks representative Wynn happy to butter up here no I think this is a I very supportive of this amazing piece of legislation because firefighters should be protected And our communities right now are facing a lot And I a yes

And with that, Ms. King, please poll the committee.

Bradley.

Carter.

Espinosa.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members of the committee. Um, Senator Marchman had approached me about this bill and the families that have been affected one specifically in her district and knew that I needed to get on this bill. So what does this bill do? There were a lot of Senate amendments and rep Zoka is going to kind of run you guys through that. But in essence, what the bill does currently not all posts. So peace officers, standard training, certified officers receive formal training on missing persons, alert systems. So that leads to a really big gap. In this case, the Evans, Evans Police Department did not understand missing persons for a 20 year old. Delayed public notifications, missing persons alerts rely on timely reporting and proper activation by law enforcement. Without this training alerts may be issued too late or incorrectly. Vulnerable individuals could be in danger for that. longer periods. And then when it comes to campus safety, it includes a pilot for higher education institutions to report and check on missing students. Without this bill, colleges and universities may not have clear procedures to identify or act on a missing student quickly. And I just want to be clear for the record. These are not kids that went on a bender into a concert and then they're just sleeping in and their parents are worried because they haven't talked to Timmy in a couple hours. These are, you have to have in the bill it states, you have to have credible evidence of the risk to the student's safety. So about 800 voluntary students are missing, but the smaller number of high risk cases are what we need faster response times for in true emergencies where we need a wellness check. And schools and administrators are already supposed to be doing this law enforcement's already supposed to report it but you'll hear from a family today where that did not happen and so we started looking into the law and there was a significant gap so what we see are continued disparities for vulnerable populations and legal and public confidence implications the bottom line is that Colorado risks lower inconsistent and less effective responses to missing persons reports especially on college campuses and so this is just to close that loophole so that our kids that are away and it might be in significant danger can get the necessary protections they need as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I want to first start by thanking Senator Marchman for her leadership in this space. This was a bill that she started looking into after a tragedy in her district, and the response to that was confusing and clunky and really just not how it should have been. And I appreciate that she took action and has really paved the way and allowed my wonderful co-prime here and I to continue building on her work. I will say that, to the surprise of no one, this is our first bill together. And I think that it really speaks to the fact that as parents, as moms, we really do feel for what these families have been through, and they have been through just the unimaginable worst. And I am so in awe of them of taking that tragedy and turning it into a meaningful change for other families so that they don't have to suffer as they did. We have currently situations where an adult is missing and families are told to just wait before filing a report. We have institutions that are not sure of who has jurisdiction and there's critical information that simply does not make it into databases quickly enough and those gaps cost time and in situations like these those lags in time can lead to tragic outcomes and no parent should be told to just wait when their child is missing. We want to make sure that the system does move immediately and decisively just as we all would want for ourselves if it was our children. So I'm going to go through what this bill requires. there was a number of amendments in the Senate, I think five, each responding to different concerns from higher education institutions. I'm not going to go through them as amendment by amendment because they are now the bill that you have before you. So I will just talk about what this bill does but I do want to just impress upon the committee how much work went into this in the Senate to get us to this space. So what this bill does is require specialized training so that every officer understands the full range of alerts available. We need to ensure that the training is consistent on the tools that are available to law enforcement and when they need to activate them That consistency is what saves lives And we are tying that training to certification and recertification requirements to make sure that those protocols are not optional but become standard practice across Colorado. When a higher education institution is alerted that a student who was last known to reside in the state is missing, that institution must either immediately inform law enforcement or conduct a wellness assessment. That wellness assessment and those protocols are defined on page five. So I'm not going to go through and read the bill, but I will just point out where you can find these details. They also must document that assessment, and the details of what must be documented are on page seven. Those records must be retained for three years. If they do not locate the student within six hours, then they must notify their institution's police department. If they do not have a police department within their institution, they notify the nearest law enforcement agency with jurisdiction. It also requires that a higher education institution have a wellness assessment policy that they do make public. The requirements of that policy are outlined on page six. And so I want to once again note that the language before us and this process that we are requiring came after a number of amendments and a lot of stakeholding in the Senate. Part of that also is a good faith immunity. You can find the language of that immunity on the bottom of page four and the top of page five. And finally, I'll just say that this bill did pass 34 to zero in the Senate, and I really hope that we can do the same here. Thank you so much. Happy to answer any questions.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep Luck, for the question. It does. We felt in talking to the senator that a kind of across the board so there's no confusion was the best way to go. I realized that we're in a little bit of a policy disagreement in regards to that, and that's fair, and I certainly understand that.

My name is Caitlin Jenkins. I'm the Amber and Alert Coordinator with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. The CBI supports this bill which would make alert training a post requirement. By allowing the CBI to implement existing training in a mandatory and ongoing fashion, the state can be assured that peace officers in Colorado are aware of the program and the resources available to them in missing person cases Not only does knowledge of the alert program improve safety and possibly assist in the initial response to missing person cases but as mentioned earlier it builds consistency and encourages accountability in how they are investigated The CBI routinely provides law enforcement training currently at the request of local agencies, including in-service training for entire departments and multi-jurisdictional teams. The effort of this bill simply builds on what is already in place for the better. The alert program in Colorado consists of seven alert types, five of which focus on missing persons. It's a tool at the request of local law enforcement that uses the media and the public to help bring our missing persons home safely. Through proper use of the alert program, local law enforcement, in partnership with CBI, has solved major crimes, located and recovered endangered missing children and adults, and generated thousands of leads called in by concerned citizens of Colorado. Getting an alert issued is a relatively simple process. local law enforcement will contact CBI. CBI will determine whether the circumstances meet any of the alert criteria set forth in prior legislation. If criteria are met, an alert can be issued. If they are not met, the CBI has implemented the endangered missing alert, also known as a media alert, which can be issued if circumstances indicate an at-risk individual or endangering circumstances. It has always been the CBI stance that we hope local law enforcement will call us early and often in missing person cases so that we can use alerts to ensure swift action in recovering missing persons. The program accounts for approximately 50% of missing person recoveries depending on the alert type. I also have more stats if any are needed. Building on existing training to ensure Colorado peace officers know and understand alert resources further enhance the CBI mission to pursue justice and ensure a safer Colorado. Thank you everyone. Happy to take

hello thank you for having me today I'm Vanessa Diaz I'm Megan Trussle's mother when Megan was first reported missing from her dorm at sea Boulder we believed that meant the people around her would know to look that did not happen students were not alerted that Megan was missing the people were on campus that night, the people who may have seen her, who may have crossed her path, did not know to pay attention, did not know to come forward, did not know they might hold important information. When a student disappears from campus, the campus community is often the best source of information, but only if they actually know that the student is missing. In Megan's case, that opportunity passed without anyone even knowing to look. We still do not know who saw her that night. We still do not know who may have had information in those first hours and now we never will. I also requested a missing Indigenous Person Alert on February 12th to the university. It was not issued until late on February 14th. The law states that was supposed to be done within eight hours of notification. That delay reflects why training matters. Families should not have to request tools that already exist and those tools should be used without delay when a student is missing. Those early hours are when witnesses still remember what they saw when details are clear when somebody might think i saw her or i passed her or something just doesn't seem right this bill does not require universities to investigate students it simply requires them to act quickly when a student is reported missing to look to check to reach out and to ensure that if a student cannot be located law enforcement is notified without delay because when nobody knows a student is missing no one can help we cannot go back to the night megan disappeared but we can make sure that the next student who goes missing is not invisible to the very community that could help them

Welcome. Thank you for having me. My name is Leah Schultz Bartlett. I'm here today on behalf of Megan Trestle and her family. Megan Trestle was my daughter's childhood friend. My daughter also attends CU Boulder. When a college student goes missing there should be urgency and in Megan's case there was not. University parent pages were removing posts and missing person bulletins from campus and around the university as her friends and family frantically began searching for Megan. The university was actively taking down flyers and some volunteers were being told that they were parent tours and they didn't want to alarm the public. When Megan was reported missing, her parents were told it was quote normal and that she was probably quote couch surfing and that quote they see this all the time she would turn up. We were also told as college parents that the RA can only ask, knock and ask the child to call you but they cannot tell you if your child is okay. Our college students are quote now adults and anything they do in their eyes should be kept private. After Megan went missing as we canvassed campus in Boulder with flyers and asking people if they'd seen Megan, many students and community members said this was the first that they had heard of a missing student. While we cannot bring Megan back or change the fact that her roommate didn't care enough to report her missing, what we can change is that when she was finally reported missing, her family was blown off causing more precious time to pass. This was vital time to to locate Megan. This should never ever be allowed to happen again. A well check should happen if a college student is missing and it should happen urgently. University personnel should begin immediately checking residence halls, door entry key usage and checking in with friends and family. And if the student cannot be located within a few hours, six enforcement should be immediately involved. Law enforcement should also be well trained in how to search for a missing student. While I understand college students are looked at as adults, we all know that they are newly entering adulthood and navigating life away from home, which unfortunately at times can bring with it dangerous situations. Universities are trusted with our most precious young people and parents are relying on them to keep their precious children safe. I hope that you consider passing this bill so we can keep our children safe and that no other family has to endure what Megan's family has gone through. Megan deserved better. She deserved to be protected and looked for immediately. She deserved to have staff and student on campus aware that she was missing and helping to search for her. Megan was an incredible young woman, and she should be here today. Thank you.

Ms. Jenkins. Thank you, Madam Chair and Representative Luck. Yeah, so in terms of the, I call it the young adult age range, 18 to 26 or so, right? They are an underrepresented age range in the alert statistics overall. Through the past couple years, last year we issued 14 alerts for that age range, 24 we issued 11 alerts for that age range, and 23 we issued 3. And from there, it just gets less. I don't have answers as to why we issue a lower amount. My guess, right, is that we think that it's probably underreported or not taken as seriously as it should be, you know, just due to, you know, young adults living their life, you know, like it was mentioned earlier.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to echo those families came forward and had a press conference. And, man, when you're trying to turn lemons into lemonade, I don't want to get emotional, but I can't imagine not getting a call from law enforcement after what happened to my son. I got it an hour late, and I thought that that was tragic in itself because I barely made it to the hospital. I can't imagine what these families went through. And if there's a way to close a gap and make their losses seem a little bit lighter because they're fighting for all of our kids to be safe, then by golly, let's do it. And I am just so grateful that I get to be on this bill because I just I couldn't even imagine. So thank you. Thank you. Representative Zokai.

Representative Bradley, do you want to move the bill? It will go to the Committee of the Whole.

Second.

Members, do you have any closing comments? Representative Espinoza.

Any other remarks? Okay. I'm not seeing any hands. Thank you both so much for bringing this bill forward. I'm really struck by just how devastating the loss and the purpose of this bill is. I mean, I don't even have words. But we do know that when people go missing, that time is of the essence. And I believe that you all have brought forward a really thoughtful solution, and I look forward to it being fully implemented in our state. So I will be a yes. And, again, just want to reiterate a thank you to the family that came forward and spoke about their pain in order to make change. I'm sorry that they even had to do that, but we heard them, and I think that you'll see this bill come out of committee. So with that, Ms. King, please poll the committee.

Yes.

Yes.

Espinoza.

Paray.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Representative Wynne. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to present and talk about Senate Bill SB087, the right to serve. This bill basically gives an opportunity, and this only affects lawmakers, so only 100 of us at the General Assembly, to have leave for legislative duties. And I come in a unique position because I had to quit my job and resign from city council. For me, I was really attracted to this bill just because the fact that after session ends, I'm going to be looking for a part-time gig. And so this bill just protects those who wish to serve in public office. Currently, multiple unions have endorsed and support this. SEIU CEA AFSCME AFL are on support and of course there two amendments that was passed in the Senate before I came here And one thing I want to know is that this is not going to be implemented until January 2029 And another provision that was protected is that this talks about how really just making sure that people who wish to serve are able to serve with the benefits and not coming with sacrifice. Because some folks are just unable to really function at the State Assembly. And we know about the vacancy situations. People leave often because it is just unreformable. You cannot live with only $47,000 a year. And so some of our members have resigned or have found other opportunities, and this basically prevents that and hopefully allows folks to go back to work. And this is very limited in scope. It only affects members who are acting or starting to acting, who are presently functioning and acting in official capacity at the General Assembly.

Members, what questions do you have?

Would you like to answer anything that you heard, or would you like to respond to anything you heard?

What a great statement. I think that, I mean, this affects teachers, educators, nurses. For me, as a former state employee, I think that I recognize that, you know, a lot of us have contracts that are full-time. And so I understand that concern. And I know previous members or actually one current member was a nurse and he served during the pandemic. I think that's Senator Kalamolka. So I recognize that when the calling is there, some folks might actually go back and serve immediately after session. But I think what this does and the reality is that economically speaking, working class Colorans are not able to serve as legislators. And we're hoping that employers understand that to serve in public office is worth keeping their employees. And for me, I would love to go back to the state, for example. But unfortunately, that was not given to me and I lost my opportunity, lost my job.

Thank you. And thank you for that. I guess my question is, and I appreciate Malika serving. I served during COVID as well. How do we put that on employers because we decide to step up and run that they then have to accept us back when they've had to hire others to fulfill that space? I guess is my question with your bill.

Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Rep Bradley. I think that you are highlighting what is A concern about saying we have a part-time legislature in the first place is that it will create this conundrum for many of us who have other things to do and how it is a very strange situation to say we have a citizen legislature and have people pop in and out of the legislature when, unless you are not doing anything else for the rest of the year, and this is just your six months of, you know, working, Everybody is trying to figure out how to balance ranches and all the other business things that we hear about that people are doing. And I think that this is us trying to take a first step in figuring out how to address something that I think people have been enduring for a very long time here. And then we're saying, you know what, there's probably something we can do about this to make this a little more accessible to more people. And, you know, I think the thing about it is it will be impacting so few companies or businesses because this is not a statewide mandate for, like, changing leave of absence for the entire state. state. It is for this 100 group population. And like I said, not everybody will take advantage of it or ask for a leave and not, not everybody will qualify for leave in the first place because of the 120%. And so, um, I understand the challenge of that. And that is something that, and like I said, not everybody has to take advantage of it. Like you don't, you don't have to do that if you don't want to. And if you're looking at it and you're good or thinking that it is, um, not going to work out at your place of business, you don't have to request the leave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Do you know what 120 AMI is for in terms of dollars? Sometimes people don't understand what AMI means, so it might be helpful just to share what that dollar amount is.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep Frey. I actually looked it up in Arapahoe County for me and my husband now that we have our kids moving out. For a household of two, the AMI is, I think it was like 130,000. And so if you did the 120, 120% of that, it's like around 150 or whatever the math is. Don't make me do math on the fly. And that is, that's for that particular county in a metro area. So that would not be the same everywhere necessarily. but that's the kind of numbers that we're looking at. And in my particular situation, my husband is an employee for DPS, and then with my legislative income, we would technically fit into that. So maybe. But then, you know, if I'm taking on something else, it would be quite different. But, yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say that this exists already in certain parts of our society, specifically military service. what I don't understand is us elevating us elevating the legislature to that level and placing the honest on the small business owner or anyone why have we elevated ourselves to that stature And why have we then decided to place a heavier burden on whoever that employer is without any benefit for that employer If the state wants to hire you back or keep you on, they absolutely can't. That's their choice. Why have we decided to take that choice away from them?

Thank you, Representative Carter. I think to answer that question is that, you know, lawmakers who wish to serve outside of a very small group of field of, you know, careers are just not able to, or, you know, people who choose to serve are not able to. And for me, I think that this gives an opportunity for folks who are working class, educators, teachers. And, again, I want to just highlight that, again, this bill would be implemented in 2029. For me personally, I would not even be able to go back to serve for the state. So I think we have another follow-up question, Madam Chair.

Just as a follow-up, talk to me as a small business owner. Talk to me as a – just talk to me as a business owner. why and what help are you going to give me when I now have to both fill your position and then turn around and tell that person that they no longer work there. So I need to understand that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For any small business owner, for folks who are losing an employee for four months, that is a challenge. And I understand and recognize that, you know, the idea is that they would come back for the remaining parts of the year. So after, you know, immediately after May 13th, I'm back in. I'll be working, you know, six, you know, six days or five days a week, eight to five. And I'm making a sacrifice, not sacrifice, a public service. and the idea is that, you know, employers would hopefully welcome the idea of folks being a state legislator and then coming back. But, again, that's just my opinion. I think that I understand that some employers would be – there's burden to that, and I recognize that as well.

I'm so sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add, too, I understand the point that you're bringing up, and I think that this is an issue, as many pieces of legislation are, of balancing some kind of competing needs, because I recognize that that is a concern. I also recognize that while this isn't the exact same thing, obviously, as military service, this is service and it is important work. And it's important that we have a large swath of people able to do this work. And so I think those things are balanced. I think that we need to consider unless we're going to change everything about how our legislature runs and make this like a full time job with full time income, we will constantly have this conundrum of there is a small amount of people who can do this work where it's not impacting the rest of their work. Like, I don't know everybody else's situation, but I know my situation of, like, when I leave the legislature, I'm like, okay, shall I go work at Target? Because that's something that I can go work at that's not, you know, I can work at seasonally, and then I can come back to the legislature. I mean these are the real decisions I had to make about what am I going to do And so because not every job not every job you know is able to do this But I think that it really limits the folks that we have here that we need to make sure that it's not just people who are retired, who don't require any more income or people that are married and have a spouse that can help supplement their income because I'm telling you, if I wasn't married, there's no way I could have this position. And so all these things that we need to make sure that we have working class people also representing constituents around Colorado because that's the majority of our population. And so there is an interesting balance there. I agree. But as I've said before, since it's for 100 people and all those people won't even apply. It is a minimal amount of employers that would even be facing this or even get the request. So it's not an undue burden necessarily that we're placing on everybody in Colorado, but I would also argue it's quite a burden also on people serving in the legislature. And I understand the argument that no one is forcing us to run for office, but I think that so many people talk themselves out of this job already because of the financial piece. And I think we do ourselves a disservice when people are deciding whether their voice, that they'd like to run for office and have their voice heard at the Capitol because of their income or what kind of job they have. And so I think this is actually very critical legislation to figure out how to make this piece more accessible.

Thank you. I have two questions. Should I ask them together or sequentially?

Okay. So the first question, I think we still need to address the larger issue as to the impact on the business community. And you say, not every business could handle this, and that's okay. We don't have to worry about it. I don't think that's a proper way to do public policy, and I want to bring forward one of the biggest areas is education. And yes, we do want to have teachers, and we have good lobbyists and other people who come and talk to us about education. But I do not see how we can tell a school district that they have to, during the school year, let someone go when it's disrupting the whole teaching environment, not only for that class, because the teacher is hired for a time period that intersects with the legislature. So you're asking them to then have a long-term sub or have multiple subs, which undermines the consistency of education for the students to adopt this policy and or put people in a place where they're already in a part-time job, receiving then pay maybe or unpaid, which doesn't fix the other problem in these circumstances. But I think education is one specific example. I think there are other examples where industries cannot do what you're asking them to do. Can you respond to that?

Thank you for the question, Representative Espinoza. And I think to compare this, I agree with you that teachers are already burdensome with low wages and long hours and large classroom sizes. So I understand that that is an element for how this could affect folks with losing an educator. But I also recognize that many professions have similar leave for, you know, again, the military, if you're a volunteer firefighter. I think public service comes with sacrifice. And you know most of us here are can emphasize that you know this bill or not this bill that the work that we do for public service is important and that it is not accessible or equitable And so I think that I recognize that this might hurt a handful of businesses possibly if they lose an employee And I recognize that some folks, it is a big choice, but there is a huge gap between, you know, folks who wish to serve for public office. And I think that this is hopefully bridging that gap, allowing young people, people of color, immigrants to serve. So I think the benefits are there for communities who are underrepresented.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you guys for this conversation. It is something that we've talked about a lot in this building and out on the campaign trail, frankly, right? trying to recruit candidates to run for office and they say how am I going to make it work financially. I do have some questions related to the exception that was added in the Senate. And really what I'm wanting to understand is how you all process this exception being added in terms of fairness. I did a quick search of this qualification based off of geographical regions in Colorado and in Fremont County where I'm from, $117,720 is what you would need to make on an annualized basis in order to fall within the terms of this bill. So if you make $118,000, right, and I'm talking in terms of a single individual, right, single household single individual household but in Otero County which is a county I represented before redistricting took place all you need to make a sixty one thousand eight hundred dollars and when you take out our current salary here you're looking at less than twenty thousand for the rest of the year there are not necessarily that many jobs that would fall under that and yet there is a disparity between the person coming from Otero County making sixty one thousand and the person coming from Fremont County, even within that same district, which used to exist as the same district. So if I lived in 2020 in Otero County and this policy was in place, I would likely not have been able to keep my job under this. But if I lived just two counties over in Fremont County, I probably would have. And so help me understand how that is fair and what you're contemplating. because my sense in hearing the idea of working class individuals, you know, define that because working class, you know, normally is economically understood, but many of us have to work in order to continue forward. So in terms of these kinds of conversations, is the distinction between socioeconomic or is it between people who work versus people who are retired and don't need to work?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Repluck. I think because we have, we considered, and what was considered in the Senate was the AMI, that it is being attached to the socioeconomics. I mean, obviously, when we say working class, that is a swath of incomes. But we are looking at people who, if they take on only the job as a legislator with that money and that they are not making a living wage one way or the other, that this would be considered in that. Because and I think that that then talks of fairness is that we're not trying to make it so that, for example, if someone. made a million dollars a year at a different kind of job, that that job is required to give them a leave in this way, because they might be having some other situations that's allowing them to have, you know, income or a comfortable situation versus someone who is scraping by with this household income of this amount. And so, and I think too, it is tough. Anytime you have for any kind of program where it's like $50,000 is the cutoff. And inevitably there's somebody who makes $50,001 and they're not eligible for the program. And that is real. And that is frustrating for many things, including like Medicaid or food assistance and things like that. And so I agree that there are some things that are not fair about that, but they're just from a policy perspective, there has to be a number in a lot of ways that we are considering of like, this is what we are saying is eligible for this program. That is not new here in this policy space of deciding whether people are eligible for benefits. But yes, and that's what's tough about AMI and all the different counties is it will differ 100%.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for this conversation. Maybe to frame another way, you know, it occurs to me that there are some that when they run for office are making, like when I was a teacher, I made roughly $30,000 a year. So if I had come right out of teaching, well, in some ways I did come right out of that. In any case, I'm actually getting a pay raise by being here. but this policy would apply to me versus if I were a high-powered attorney and being asked to run because my particular skill set was needed at this time, the sacrifice that I am being asked because I have to leave my million-dollar job in order to take a $42,000 job, like, why is that fair? To suggest that, you know, yes, maybe this year I'm making a million and I have a lifestyle that requires that because I purchased a house and I have these kids who have these expectations about certain things. And so when the district comes to me and says, we want you to run because we really think that you can help us answer these problems, why should I be then prejudiced against in that when someone else who, by the standard you just set, is actually getting a pay raise by taking on this particular obligation?

Thank you for the thought experiment with Representative Luck. I think that just really highlights the gaps between incomes and the fact that for some rural communities, being a teacher is just not possible with living wages. And I think that just, again, highlights that there is a divide between who gets to serve and who is able to serve. I think for your particular case, you are probably one of the very few folks who maybe got a pay raise from going. I think a lot of members of the General Assembly and for lawmakers nationwide, there are serious barriers of folks who make less than $100,000 with going to office. And I think that why our data points is that most members of the General Assembly are lawyers or realtors or folks who have more flexible and higher careers And to answer your point I guess this does bridge that gap This allows for working class families and folks who might not be able to I guess run for office or have public careers, the ability and opportunity to serve in the General Assembly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And for those wondering, I fell last night and had my knee elevated. That's why I'm in a little bit weird position. Okay. I just want to go back to the last point that was raised in terms of clarifying that until last year's class, the legislature did not have very many attorneys, and I would submit part of that was because people who were choosing to run were choosing to be more representative exactly as what you had said. And I don't think this bill does anything to guarantee the diversity of employment that you're talking about. And so I'd just like to know how you think this is really going to help that diversity of representation come into the legislature because we have people, and especially I'm tying this back, Representative Wynne, to your comment of people of color and people who have backgrounds, who are many of whom are sitting in this legislature now who have obtained all the status and everything else. And I just don't want it to be reflected that somehow our ability to become educated and have these access to the information is not as valued as someone who is not at that economic level.

Representative Espinoza, I recognize that being a legislator and getting education is a privilege. It absolutely is. And because of these privileges, because of these barriers, I think that there are – it's just – I guess the premise of this bill is to essentially allow for folks to have living wages, to be able to not just survive for $47,000 a year. And I think that for us, that employment is – this is a part-time job. That is really, truly a full-time commitment. And I think for me, all we're asking is that we level the playing field, we give people more opportunities. And for me, as a recent lawmaker here, I mean, this is truly a wonderful experience. But now I have to personally find work immediately after May 13th. And I think from where I come from, being the only Asian American at the State Assembly, the General Assembly, it's just that I feel like a lot of my friends, a lot of people in my community, a lot of young Americans, we don't see these opportunities at all, and hopefully this just lowers those barriers.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I just Googled immediately, what is the median household income of Colorado? It's approximately $92,900. If we are only serving four months of the year, aren't we already making more than the median income of other individuals within Colorado?

For my community, for Broomfield, it's 120,000. I'm sorry, 120% AMI for Broomfield is approximately $113,000. And not to go too much in my finances for my fiance and I, but we don't make that much money. We don't even make $90,000. And with my income loss, we make, I think, being house poor is if you pay more than 35% of your income to your home for your mortgage. I'm currently paying more than half my salary for my house right now.

but what you have not explained to me, the purpose of this bill is to create more opportunities for different individuals in the community. And the way that you keep explaining it is that we need a compensation level. There seems to be a constant talk about a compensation level. And your answer to the fact that we as legislators are not paid as much appears to be some type of burden or tax on business. if your point is that the legislature is not adequate or our statute or our salary is not adequate, why isn't the legislation directed at that as opposed to placing a burden on the business community to somehow compensate us?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Carter. I mean, these discussions are not new. Gosh, I'm trying to remember if it was last session or the session before where we were trying to address this, I think even through maybe it was like a study or figuring out like a commission to look into, you know, a different payment structure for legislatures or legislators. Number one, we can't really vote ourselves a raise. So that's, I think, why we were going that commission route. But I don't even, someone correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that even went anywhere. So it's still a process that was working on being addressed. It's kind of weird and dicey and all these things that we need to do. And so when that didn't make it across the finish line, then we are looking at other ways to try to address this issue. Because I think that if I were queen of the world, I would say that this is not a part-time job and we should be paid as full-time income. Because I don't know, I can't speak for everybody else, but I don't just dip out of here mid-May and not think or do anything legislatively until I show up in January. I feel like this is constant work. So if I could decide it, I would say this is full-time work, full-time income. That is not the case. And so we're trying to figure out a solution for somebody who is here. And, I mean, I look at my day when I'm here from 7.30 till 9 p.m. or whatever. It's not even like you can take part-time during session and try to make things work. But there are some people who cannot live off this $42,000. and when session is over, they don't have their other job to go back to. Some people do, and that's awesome. Some people don't, and so we're trying to provide that opportunity so you don't either have to choose to only make whatever the legislature pays you or have to go do something entirely different. And because it does matter when you have folks that really are locked out of this process because they have no opportunity to figure this piece out during interim Like they just don have the luxury of a job situation where they can go without kind of you know bolstering it with this And I think it is really critical. I'm on this bill because I think it's really important that we figure out how to make this not a position that only privileged folks who have no concerns about money can do or people who are working class that they are just barely hanging on and counting at the end of every month of, you know, I've got $20 in my account. And so I feel like there's something we can do, a little middle ground, to try to make this a more accessible position for people seeking office across the state. And I actually think it's really, really important. So I understand all the challenges about it, but I think that we are doing our best, considering some failures of other attempts, to try to move that conversation forward and figure out a path forward to address this income situation with the legislature.

question it's just a response and an answer so house bill 24 10 59 was compensation for state elected officials a commission was created to determine an independent state elected official pay commission was created to determine what our pay scales should be they submitted a report on December 15th of last year that report found that they are now recommending adjusting the salary of General Assembly members starting January of next year to fifty thousand eight hundred two dollars base so just everybody know because we just brought that forward

I, too, read the report and have some concerns about the way that they made their decision. But I do really appreciate that you were able to bring that up and provide some clarity. I have a couple of questions. We've talked a lot about the AMI.

representative win um the reason why they did that was because um this was in reflection to folks who are managers who have less than 20 reports like principals and the amendment took out the provision around management and just left the ami and this ensures that folks who may manage employees like k-12 principals can still benefit from the legislation and of course again The income limit is 120%.

And then you mentioned that the bill goes into effect in 2029, and I just wanted to make sure in reviewing the bill, it looks like it would go into effect in 2027 unless a senator is currently serving, and it would go into effect for them in 2029 once they'd been reelected.

Representative Lindsay. Yes, Madam Chair, I think you are. That carve-out was just for that date for the Senate with a four-year term just because it's a little different on how that's determined than someone in the House just because of term limits. Okay. And then do you know how many weeks approximately the legislature works?

Gosh, in my brain I always think of it about 16 or 17 or around. Yeah, I think that's probably about right. And then do you have any sense of how many weeks people are allowed to take for paid family leave?

I have no children, but I'm going to shoot out in the dark three weeks. What? Dude, no.

I was a stay-at-home mom and I actually did not do family leave so I'm kind of unfamiliar but I think it's up to 12 weeks or 3 months or something like that I believe 12 weeks and then obviously you get some additional time if your child is in the NICU I was just curious if you all were aware of that

with kids under the age of five years old that may be paying for daycare? Under the age of five.

That's valid.

I'm sure you will perhaps tell us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was joined and inspired to be part of SB87 just because of my own personal journey. I think that I would personally say that from my background as being a former state employee, as someone who took a $30,000 pay cut to be here, I mean, I got engaged with my fiance in November, and I was not expecting to be in this position in January of this year. So I think this allows for folks to have a leveling the playing field to allow for equity. This is a bill that's going to allow for people of color, for working families, for folks who would not have an opportunity to have leave. And I think that's important is that we're just trying to make sure that folks have accessibility to serve in public office. So this is a good bill, and I urge for a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you committee and thank you for all the questions I mean we recognize the complexities of this issue I think that one way or another we will need to figure out how to address this not so part time legislator concept and how that impacts the people that serve while they are serving or the people that never ever even run for office because they know that it just will not work for them that they literally cannot do it they financially cannot do it. And I think we are worse off as a state when we are automatically excluding so many working class folks from joining us here to pass policy that reflects the majority of Coloradans. And so with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Yes, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 87 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Second.

Representative Carter. Thank you madam chair. I understand I appreciate you bringing this bill. I understand the difficulties of being in the legislature and I also understand that as I indicated I believe the impotence for the bill is legitimate. It is not a part-time job, but it's also what we signed up for. That being said, if you want to work towards compensation or work towards something additional to help us make this job more palatable or have more individuals that actually want to come out and do the job, I'm willing to help and I'm willing to listen. But when the answer to the legislature is hard, so we need to do an unfunded mandate on a business, I can't get behind that. And so I applaud your attempt. I appreciate it. I hope that we find something that works, but I'm going to be a no today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors, for bringing the bill. Well, I do think, you know, we've had conversations over the time, as Representative Lindsay, you've indicated with regard to this. And I think there's real questions, even in terms of what the salaries are, given the disparities of individuals who live more than 50 miles away get an additional $250 a day, whereas people who live 42 miles away do not get that. They're still engaging in fairly similar kinds of travel and impediments that they're having to deal with. But those, again, as you say, we make the cutoffs, and people make the termination. And that's a huge factor as well that hasn't been discussed in terms of the compensation. And so for many people, you know, we are attempting to make some steps to make sure that we are compensating people at a reasonable rate for what is defined by the citizens as a part-time legislature. And I agree that this work, if you're doing it well, is not a part-time job. but I think that your solution does not advance the issues to educate the public as to the reality that this is not a part-time job. And it doesn't fix the problem if you are not treating this as a part-time job by telling an employer that they have to hire somebody to take your place and disrupt your industry in lots of circumstances where you know there's an inherent conflict between your job and this job. And I think that where individual choice and responsibility comes in in terms of people deciding the time and the place where they can make a determination to step into this job and maybe step away from the other job not impeding their employer in the process And I'm also concerned that instead of addressing, this takes us down another road, which is, you've said over and over again, this is not a part-time job. But this doesn't fix the problem, not that we have any interim committees this year, but if you have interim committees, if you have other things, then again, So you may be asking an employer for year-round systemic substitution of you as an employee. And I know in my jobs that I've been in, my employers would not have been able to function because I brought expertise to the positions that they could not fill on a part-time basis. And so I think that the bill still has some areas of where it would need to be worked out to address the different industries, to put out additional carve-outs that would allow people to make determinations. And I also think an employer should be free, if you make a decision to do something that's against their job, to say, well, then I'm not going to keep you on as an employee. And that first part freedom of the employer simply not keeping you on, if you go to them and say, hey, I want four months off, is not addressed in this bill. So I just have deep concerns with the policy. I also don't like a policy that sets us up and above as an entity, the regular citizens of the state. And so for those reasons, I'll be voting no today.

Thank you, Chair. Some different things that I think Representative Espinoza stole some of my talking points there. But here's something else that I don't think we're bringing into the conversation, which is this bill is designed around financial sacrifice. And there's some legitimate concerns here. But I think when you make a decision to do something like this that we are doing, there is a lot more sacrifices than financial sacrifices. Everybody has to sit down and count the cost of this. What is this going to mean to me? What is it going to mean to my life, to what I do, the credibility of certain arenas of my life that now I'm doing this job? There's a lot more sacrifices sometimes than financial. But we all have to do that in every single aspect of life. What am I doing? I know people that are teachers that the reason they're teachers is because they made a sacrifice. They don't get paid well, but they made a sacrifice. And we can't go out there and figure out how to fix that. They can't make $550,000 a year because they're teachers. And so there's always sacrifices. But I also don't think we've really hit on – I think Representative Carter did quite well on the edges. But here's something else. I've hired a lot of people over the years, a lot of people. it takes about a year to bring people up to speed in their job when you're working in a ministry a church or something like that and and every even if you work at mcdonald's you have to be trained so you leave they have to hire somebody and then train them by the time they get them trained you come back and displace them that's a very unhealthy business model for any business on top of that and I don't think anybody addressed this but it says in the bill that that uh that you're not allowed any ride or benefit or position other than that which was qualified that you had already been entitled to that means your employer still has to be paying insurance and some of those kind of things now somebody else comes into that job They have to add those benefits to that person but you going to come back in four months later displace this person, but the business has been paying all of these benefits for two people when they only get one person working, trying to train that person, bring them up to speed. This literally will collapse some businesses. They would not be able to make it through this. I don't see how this is the answer. I'm not a, you know, let's do this year-round person either, but all of this is decisions. All of these things are decisions, and you have to make sacrifices in life. And to do this job, you make major sacrifices. To me, financial is not in the top two or three sacrifices that we make here. It is one, but it's not the biggest stuff. And so to me, this is, I don't think this is the direction to go to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. Do you want to speak?

Yeah, I'll get there. I'll be all right. Thank you very much for bringing the bill. I think this is an incredibly important discussion to be had. I think this is one of the tools in the toolkit. Legislative leave has precedent in other states. It has precedent in other areas of employment as well. It shouldn't be lost upon us that actually today is the day that marks how far into 2026, March 26, white women with no children must work in order to attain the same salary as a man. You would have to work until July 21 if you're a black woman. You would have to work until August 6th if you have children, and you'd have to work until October 8th if you're Latino to make the same salary as your comparable peer who happens to be male. So that's just an indication of how challenging the workspace is for women in general. And as our chair pointed out, there's an interesting history here. our legislature was designed to be part-time. It was designed to be non-harvest season, where folks came from outside of Denver to Denver from January to May and worked that time. As the front range has grown, we've also seen an influx of women into our legislature with unique challenges among them paying for child care, among them juggling those challenges, particularly for young women. I think for young folks, there are a lot of barriers. This is unpaid or partially paid or paid. There's flexibility in there. And we have a precedent of folks working as teachers who work the first semester and take off the second semester and their district works it out with them so I think that that is a doable thing what we have a long history of is folks in very high paying jobs whose jobs want the prestige of a legislator and are willing to pay them a very high salary to have them on their masthead that doesn't work for diversifying the legislature as you mentioned I I am will be a happy yes I I think this is a good conversation. I do think we've missed an opportunity to present that history. I think we've missed an opportunity to have folks come in and tell us what's happening in other states, what the challenges are, how we've moved the needle in Colorado, but how we still have gaps. I think we've missed an opportunity particularly to bring in women's organizations that have been promoting this kind of flexibility in the workspace to bolster this discussion in your favor. I'm assuming because it made it out of the Senate and bipartisan sponsors that there is support for the bill. and should it get to the floor, I hope we get to have a more robust discussion.

Representatives Bottoms.

Bradley?

Respectfully, no.

Coray? Yes.

Luck?

Yes.

Clifford?

and

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm proud to bring House Resolution, I'm sorry, hold on. I'm proud to be House concurrent, ACR 261001, which is the Charitable Gaming Constitutional Amendment alongside Representative Sucla. Charitable Bingo has long served as a vital fundraising tool for nonprofits and community organizations across Colorado, from veterans groups to youth programs to senior services. Today, I am supporting this bill because there are so many organizations that do depend on Charitable Gaming for their fundraising. The current problem is that Charitable Bingo in Colorado is governed by constitutional provisions, that were adopted in 1958, nearly 70 years ago. The world has changed enormously since then, and these rules have not kept pace with modern times. Colorado's nonprofits are now competing in a rapidly evolving gaming market that includes state-regulated casinos, the state lottery, horse racing, off-track betting, and sports betting, None of which face the same outdated constitutional constraints as charitable gaming. Because today's charitable gaming rules are written directly into the Constitution, the General Assembly cannot adopt them through the normal legislative process. Any change, no matter how modest, requires a vote of the people. That rigidity has left charitable organizations without the flexibility to modernize and remain viable. As a result, charitable bingo revenues are declining. The community programs that fund veterans services, youth and educational initiatives, senior programs, and local charitable operations are all at increasing risk. This bill will take a resolution to the ballot to take certain parts of the general administrative task of running a bingo hall and bring it to the General Assembly. All of the regulatory restrictions still remain under the Secretary of State, which is where, according to the Constitution, this is where they're all audited, and the Secretary of State is the body that oversees charitable bingo. So none of that changes. What this bill would do is it's going to repeal outdated constitutional restrictions on how nonprofit organizations can operate their bingo and raffles, is going to authorize the General Assembly to establish oversight of charitable gaming through statute, a flexible framework that can be updated as conditions change rather than locked into the Constitution, is going to preserve the core principle that only nonprofits, charities, fraternal organizations, and veteran groups can operate bingo and raffles and that all proceeds must continue to support charitable purposes A yes vote today simply means that this is going to go to the voters to decide and that is all we're asking today. I'll pass it on to Rep. Sucla.

Thank you, Vice Chair. So I'm just going to get to the point. Two years ago, when I decided to run for this office, I have eight counties. And what I thought I would do to help meet more people is, and because I've been an Elks member since I was 21, I went to Elks clubs and talked to the people. And doing so, I found out that there were several Elks clubs that were having troubles with their pull-tab machines. And so fast-forwarded to about a month ago or two months ago. Actually, it's been a long time. It was last session. It was brought up to me about what was going on with their bingo and what was going on with the pull tabs. And I put my name in the hat on this because since I've been a member of the Elks Club since I was 21, it's a charitable organization. The majority of their funding, their biggest events are usually on Thursday nights. It's bingo. And it's what keeps the lights on. at the Elks Clubs, in Olathe, Colorado, it's at the American Legion. What's interesting is since I got into this bill, I didn't realize that my little old Elks Clubs in my eight counties, well, there's six out of the eight, was going up against Blackhawk. and I'm here just saying we want to keep doing the bingo. We want to keep doing the hoop shoots. We want to keep the lights on these organizations that funds the organizations, the bingo. You get grandma out on a Thursday night where she can go play bingo. And it's a good thing. I don't want to see these organizations. They do so much for our communities. They give scholarships every year. I don't want to see them go away. It was brought to my attention that the license form is down 39%, 38% down over a year for bingo occasions, and the players has went down to 53%. Plain and simple, I got on the bill. I want to keep those organizations to continue running. They do good things for our communities, and I ask for a yes vote.

So, one of the things I noticed here, and thank you guys for bringing the bill, is it says a more profitable charitable gaming system would increase tax revenue. How does that happen? I mean, these are charitable nonprofits, 501c3s, probably some c4s, but how are they going to be increasing tax revenue?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Red bottoms, I'm going to leave that for the bingo folks that are going to come up, the Yeah, the people representing the industry to answer that.

Representative Riggs.

Yes, one more question.

Thank you for the question.

Representative Ricks.

Finish, Representative Bottoms. Any other questions for the sponsors? Representative Carter.

Representative Sucla.

Representative Carter?

Representative Ricks.

Representative Carter. Would you like to dialogue?

Representative Bricks.

Representative Sucla.

Madam Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. I was really interested in the line of questioning from Representative Carter. I guess I'm trying to wrap my brain around what in the Constitution is preventing the innovations that you've been describing? Representative Ricks. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair. Thank you. Do you mind if I dialogue for a minute? Please. Thank you. So these charitable organizations that put on bingo, they don't pay their employees at all, they might get a hot dog after the shift. It's a volunteer kind of thing. So if there is a decision, you know, gas is high. So if somebody comes and sits at the bingo hall for, oh, yeah, and apparently it's prohibited in the Constitution. That's how it was set up initially.

Okay.

And when was the last time that you all, that a question of this nature was on the ballot? I know there was a game, there was a gaming measure that went out two years ago. I'm not sure if these particular issues were brought to the ballot,

Okay. Go ahead, Rep. Sucla. Representative Sucla, you are now in dialogue.

Okay. And then my last question is actually for you, Representative Sucla. When's auction day for session?

wonderful thank you and I love you all and I will remind you that the other committees are waiting on us representative Bradley

Representative Ricks

Sir, why don't we bring up our witness Mr. Kyle We'll have time for you to be able to provide testimony in just a moment Would you like to defer your question to the witnesses when they come? You can hold that question and there will be an expert here too answer those questions. All right. Are there any other questions? I'm going to have just, thank you. You don't know about the other ballot measures that have come before you. I do want to hear from, when the witnesses come up, I do want to hear about what those were, what the results were, what the voters voted. And then another thing that I just want to make a comment so that whoever is coming up can include it in part

I mean, and that is all we're talking about here. We're not talking about expanding that to something else.

I mean, I'm not aware of anything like that.

Thank you. I think we're on the same page. So I'm looking up what an electronic pull tab is, and it's a big old arcade like game. It's not just a pull tab on a bingo card. It's like a huge electronic like arcade type game.

So I think we're just confused. Health does this a lot. We get very confused, we'll tell you. So I think we're just trying to get to the bottom of what an actual electronic pull tab is because it looks like a slot machine. I wonder if maybe moving to the witness face might be able to help us get some additional clarity.

Appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about this referendum. HCR 1001 is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It appears and is being sold as a technical change just to move administrative services from the Constitution. What it really does is take away the ability to regulate this industry and instead opens it up to permitted games far beyond what is currently allowed. First, the voters would be asked to repeal any requirements for licensing of nonprofit Instead, HCR 1001 states that the legislature may provide for oversight of the industry. Federal courts have made it clear in this context that regulation and oversight are very different concepts in terms of the rigor that the state could exercise. In comparing the type of active governmental review and control of bingo, for instance, the court in Crosby Lodge v. National Indian Gaming Commission held that oversight merely means to watch over the conduct of that gaming. At most, it allows for minimal regulatory activity. The court contrasted this with the statute that allowed for regulation in other types of gaming and said that the two terms were not equivalent. As a result, where only oversight was allowed, regulations on the minimal amount that was to be allocated to winners was beyond the tribe's oversight powers. Similarly, HCR 1001, the fact that the state can provide oversight to this industry does not mean that it can require licensing, impose regulatory requirements on how it is conducted. In other words, all of the enforcement powers that exist currently will be eliminated. That is not acceptable for any type of gaming. Likewise, HCR 1001 eliminates subsection 3 and 4 of the current constitutional authorization for charitable gaming. As such, the references to gaming commonly known as bingo or raffles are eliminated. HCR 1001 refers only to games of chance. That includes electronic pull tab devices that look exactly like slot machine. It also includes other types of games of chance. This could include car games. This could include slot machines. And anything else in these now bingo halls will be allowed under this change. Finally, the proposed ballot question is uninformative and misleading to voters. It doesn't mention that existing requirements for nonprofits are eliminated. Requirements like 100% of the revenue is to go to nonprofits themselves. There will be no licensing of these gambling enterprises We already have a bingo industry that according to a recent Denver Gazette investigatory series is riddled with loopholes including financial misreporting and transparency one organization failing to report for the last two decades. Many nonprofits receive only a small fraction of the proceeds, with operators and vendors taking the majority.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you guys hear me? Yeah, we can. All right. Thank you. My name is Steve Odorizio. I'm a county commissioner for District 4, and I am speaking on behalf of myself and District 4, not on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners who have not officially taken a position on this. But as the representative of District 4 in the southwest portion of Adams County, we have over close, about 100,000 folks who live in this unincorporated area. And what happens in these situations is that when we have some of these uses that are allowed or that we cannot use our local zoning or other sorts of protections for the neighborhoods, these types of situations actually get dumped in the neighborhoods. And we're talking about like along Washington, Pecos, Federal, Sheridan. where we continue to have challenges, even with the illegal gaming operations that happen today. We just closed down some, not only very recently, along Pecos, and the impact to the neighborhood was significant. And the concern that we have, that I have, and the people in our community and the neighborhoods have, is that regardless of whatever type of paperwork you think this is going to change, The effect of having gambling in the neighborhoods is what would come back, whether you call this legal or not. And it did create some problems in our community. And so I'm asking that you not support this, that I would oppose this because of the concerns that we have with experience with illegal gaming operations. and just changing it from illegal to legal is not going to necessarily change the actual impacts it has on neighborhoods and the ability for local governments to try to protect those neighborhoods. So I would ask that you oppose this. I'm happy to answer any questions at any time about neighborhood issues, and I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak with all of you.

Representative Espinosa.

So, Ms. O'Keefe, if you could talk a little bit more about where the intersection of the current constitutional standing is around what might happen if this change goes into effect.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Espinosa. the concern is this that really does broaden the types of games that can be played to include slot machine, craps, roulette, many other games, because those are all games of chance. And now they can be played at bingo halls. So that can be all over the state, not just up the hill, but all over the state. And to speak to earlier concerns, voters have voted on this twice and rejected it twice. They've been asked about the volunteers. And remember volunteers are volunteers for the games right They not employees of these bingo halls or employees of these companies that own the halls They were also asked about the length of time that a non needs to be in existence and they rejected that as well. And we don't want people deciding they're a non-profit and now being able to have a bingo hall with slot machines. That's not what we want to do. We want regulation over gaming in Colorado, And that's what the voters have repeatedly said.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you tell me a little bit more about this investigative report and what the issues were that were found in the facilities already operating? Yes, you bet.

Representative Bradley.

Ms. O'Keefe. Oh, I thought that was to the commissioner. Oh, sorry. Well, because the voters have repeatedly said they want slot machines limited and up in the gaming towns. They do not want them in their backyard. They do not want – we've had votes repeatedly about putting slot machines in racetracks. That has been rejected by over 70%. Like I said, these two bingo referendums that have happened in the last five years have been rejected by the voters.

Yes, thank you. There's a significant difference between the – one of the situations that I'm going to refer to is the one that happened around 72nd and Pecos, where we literally have a bingo hall in the same strip mall as one of those illegal operations that was going on. There was a significant difference of the impact between the two operations. In the bingo hall, it was organized, it was sequential, and there was a limited amount of time and you knew what was going on. When you get into a situation where you're having these slot machines, which is what was happening also. it does become somewhat unlimited. And I know that they say that with the pull tabs, you have a little limits, but you put them into batches and then once they get through the pull tab batch or whatever, they keep going. And what happens is that you have people there all the time and the addiction issues that were going on at that moment and that situation, we're also bringing in other illegal activity. And so when you bring up the situations that have occurred in the past, this is not the organized business. is sometimes it's actually going to be run by organized crime, and it's going to be bringing in other challenges that come with that situation. Like I will tell you, as somebody who's really involved in our church, we already can do pull tabs. When you do the electronic, it changes the game significantly. It would be like changing the scratch tickets that you have at the gas station with a slot machine. And that's what I would make that akin to.

Thank you, ma'am, Chair. This will be a quick question. I'm just curious about all the bingo halls are closing and whether that be in Adams County or whether it be in the front range. Do you happen to know where these bingo halls are closing at all if they are in the front range area?

Representative Espinoza.

Ms. O'Keefe?

All right, that's all the time that we have for this panel. Thank you all so much for your time and your testimony. Thank you. I'm going to call up the group of support all together. So we have Ben Vogger, Henry Kyle, Rich Lemon, Mac Novosad, Dennis Klein, and Marla Reichert. Yes, we're aware. Thank you very much. All right. We're going to start with you here, sir. Please introduce yourself. Tell us who you represent, and the floor is yours for three minutes.

So what taking the reins off by removing us, some of these issues from the Constitution will go a long way. So I ask that you please put us on the ballot.

I am currently in charge of fundraising and bingo is a big part of that. We actually worked bingo. We started back in the early 2000s, so we've been doing bingo for over 20 years, including on 72nd and Pecos, where I've never known of any issue whatsoever. We were there for many, many years. And they lost their lease because of COVID. So that's the reason why we had to leave that particular hall. I will tell you this much. I think it's important. The money that we make, the Broomfield Rotary, and what it goes for, We donate the money. We give the money to nonprofits in our community, and that's what we do. We have a grant cycle where any nonprofit in that area can apply for money, and we support them. I'll give you an example. We have the food bank, which is Fish. We help support them. We have Precious Child, which lives in Broomfield. We help support them. We do Imagination Library, which Dolly Parton puts on. and we have a big program in that area for our children. We also have SRB, Senior Resources of Broomfield, who are actively involved with Dr. Cog and what we do. We actively support them for seniors. We also have the Refuge for those who are homeless and that type of thing. I spent all day with them yesterday. We help support them. Then we go to school. We go to Bell Swan, which is a preschool for blended students, and we actively involve them and help support them, plus many other nonprofits that exist in Broomfield. So bingo revenue is so important for the Rotary and being able to support these nonprofits. The bigger picture that we know, I don't know if we have any Rotarians here or not, but I will tell you this, we help support the big cause, which is to eliminate polio across the world. and Rotary has been very fully engaged in that and they're busy trying to eradicate it. We support that with bingo money. So the purpose of everything we do has a real strong representation of how important bingo is. I have been to California twice. I went out there just to watch bingo in place. If you want to see bingo being very active and very supportive and really helping nonprofits take a trip out there. They don't do slot machines. They don't do card games, none of that. They do bingo. They do raffle tickets, and they do what they call pull tabs. It's all standard stuff that they do. In fact, the flash games that we brought here, I like to think I was helpfully instrumental in bringing that legislation to us because that is changing the game. That particular game is changing. That's why the numbers are up. It's very, very positive. And there's other things we can do to help prove that. So, again, I'm asking for your yes vote, and that tells me you have a large heart for our nonprofits. Thank you.

Have been for the last 20 years. We've made a lot of changes over the years to charitable gaming here in the state of Colorado. Important distinction here that I want to go ahead and share with you is that if you look at this pass out that we passed out a couple of days, I've spent more, I've put more paper out on this than I have ever done on any other issue that I've worked. But anyway, everything that we're talking about is covered by article whatever that is, 10, 15, 20, whatever it is, section two. That's the Colorado Constitution that goes ahead and says, guess what? You can go ahead and play bingo raffles. It's found in the lotto section. From there, you go to Colorado CRS. Colorado revised statutes. Title 24, Article 21, Part 6 statute. Now, everything that happens to be in Title 24 is a result of the Constitution. The Constitution says that we have to wait five years. Well, the statute says you've got to wait five years. The Constitution says you can't do remuneration. well we have it in statute that says you can't do remuneration constitution doesn't let you go ahead and do slot machines and these others and I think there was a red herring that's not granted in the constitution that's covered in Colorado revised statutes 2421 so what are we really trying to ask the people to do We're saying take out the administrative stuff, the restrictive language in the Constitution. It means it still stays in the revised statutes. It can't be changed unless legislation is introduced. So as a result, the Constitution still maintains the integrity of charitable gaming in the state. and we are regulated positively by Colorado revised statutes, which gives the Secretary of State the oversight, the licensing, the management of charitable gaming in the state of Colorado. Nothing changes. It just means we can be a little more flexible. Now, you asked about the question earlier about our previous times. I'll tell you what, those are two hard battles the very first one was amendment C and that was done four years ago I believe, Rich and we had $5,000 to run that campaign as a result of that we lost it by two points, you had to have 55%

right on, thank you Madam Chairman

My name is Mac Novosad. I represent Pueblo Elks number 90 in Pueblo, Colorado. We currently conduct bingo, pull tabs, and raffle. All of our bingo revenue supports charitable activities including veterans, active service, youth, homelessness, community service programs. And without this bingo revenue, we would not be able to do these things. We have 55 lodges in the state. Currently, as of today, we've raised a total of $12,568,000 of charitable revenue, not all of it through bingo, but without the bingo revenue for these organizations, we wouldn't be able to raise this. And all of this went to these different community programs. I'm in support of this resolution. This resolution does not weaken oversight or diminish the charitable mission of these activities. Rather, it strengthens the state's ability to implement clear enforcement and adapt rules, modern rules, that protect the public interest while supporting nonprofit organizations. We as volunteers do not accept or take money to run bingo. But there was some mention earlier about bartenders. We do employ, Elks Lodges do employ bartenders that aren't members of the order. They are not allowed to disperse bingo revenues as only volunteers are able to do that. That is one of the issues that we are facing as a fraternal organization is sometimes the games manager isn't there or there isn't a necessary person to pay out these pull tabs. And this would enable us to have that ability to have these operating during other hours as well. So I'm in complete support of this resolution, and I'm willing to answer any questions concerning operation bingos and any questions about pull tabs.

thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of HCR 261001, the charitable gaming referred measure. My name is Dennis Klein. I'm the past president of the Longmont Elks Lodge No. 1055, a longstanding community organization dedicated to service, charity, and local impact since 1906. For 120 years, the Longmont Elks have worked to strengthen our community through charitable giving to youth and education programs, provide veteran support, help seniors and families in need. The funds that make this work possible come primarily from member contributions and fundraising through bingo and raffle activities. However, like many nonprofits and fraternals across the Colorado, our state of Colorado. We face increased requests from community members asking for help, but we're also faced with ever-increasing financial pressures as costs rise and traditional funding, fundraising becomes less effective. HCR 261001 presents a responsible and a well-regulated opportunity to modernize charitable gaming in a way that directly benefits organizations like ours By improving and clarifying the tools available for charitable fundraising this measure would allow us to generate sustainable revenue while maintaining strict regulation and accountability. From my perspective, there are three reasons to support this measure. Strengthen local charities. Charitable gaming provides a proven mechanism to increase funding to nonprofits without raising taxes or placing additional burden on residents. For the Longmont Elks, additional revenue would be directly translated into expanded scholarships, continued veteran support, and increased support for seniors and families facing hardship. Keeping funds in the community. Every dollar raised through charitable gaming at our lodge stays local. Unlike commercial enterprises, proceeds are reinvested into the community through grants, programs, and direct aid. Supporting this measure ensures that more resources remain in Colorado communities where they are most needed. Ensuring transparency and accountability. HCR 261001 maintains strong regulatory framework to ensure charitable gaming is conducted ethically and transparently. Organizations like ours are committed to compliance, stewardship, and we welcome continued clear guidelines and regulation to protect both participants and beneficiaries. It is important to emphasize that this measure is not about expanding gaming for profit. It's about empowering trusted community organizations to better serve their missions. The Longmont Elks and nonprofit site guards across the state operate with a deep sense of responsibility to our communities, and we will view this as a tool to do more good for our communities. In closing, I respectfully ask you to support HCR 261001. The measure represents a thoughtful, community-focused approach to strengthening Colorado's nonprofit sector and ensuring that organizations like the Elks, American Legions, VFW Post, Eagle Aries, Moose Lodges, and many, many nonprofits.

Sorry, I had a little trouble getting unmuted. No problem.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, panel, for the opportunity to testify today. I'm representing myself in support of this bill. And I want to speak to you not just about policy, but about principle. At its core, this resolution is about whether we trust the people of Colorado to govern themselves, or whether we continue to bind them to outdated constitutional language that no longer reflects today's reality. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Our constitution should set guardrails, not act as a barrier to local communities solving their own problems. right now charitable organizations across Colorado are being held back not by lack of need not by lack of willingness but by language that prevents them from adapting growing and fully serving their communities these are not corporate interests these are local groups eagles elk service organizations supporting veterans first responders youth programs and families in need and this is where it becomes personal for me I'm sorry. Give me just one moment, please.

I a member of the Pueblo West Eagles I a past president of the Women Auxiliary I am formerly a games manager and the Eagles have been a member of the Pueblo West Eagles I a past president of the Women Auxiliary I am formerly a games manager And the Eagles have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the Soaring Eagle Center for Autism in Pueblo West As the grandmother of an autistic child, I can tell you firsthand, those services are not abstract. They are life-changing. They help families who are overwhelmed learn how to care for and support their child in a way that gives them hope and stability. When those charitable dollars disappear, that impact disappears with them. And that is exactly what happens when we restrict the ability of these organizations to raise funds. Every dollar generated through charitable gaming stays in the community. It does not leave. It does not go to bureaucracy. It goes directly to people who need it. Now, I understand there may be some concerns about this policy, but I would ask you to consider this. A yes vote on HCR 26-101 is not a vote to expand government. It is not even a vote to endorse this policy. A yes vote is a vote for the Constitution as it was intended to function. It is a vote to let the people decide. It is a vote to remove outdated language and trust voters to make the right call for their own communities. If we believe in self-governance, if we believe the people are capable of making decisions, then we shouldn't fear giving them the opportunity to do so. This resolution simply puts that choice where it belongs, in the hands of the people of Colorado. So I respectfully ask for your yes vote. Thank you for your time, your service and your commitment to our Constitution.

OK, thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to all who have testified. My question is for Mr. Kyle. So you had outlined on your sheet of paper how nothing is really going to change because the constitutional provisions are duplicative in or duplicated within the CRS. But the opposition pointed us to a case that made a distinction between regulations and oversight, those powers. I note here on page three, lines 18 through 21 of the resolution, that the word oversight is here. It says specifically the General Assembly shall establish by law the oversight of the operation of games of chance by organizations permitted pursuant to this subsection to to conduct games of chance. That is language I don't tend to see in our drafts of constitutional amendments or or regulations. and so it seems in light of the case precedent that was pointed to that that was a very intentional choice. And my concern is if that case was accurately presented, which I have reason to believe that it is, that what is actually happening here is not only an erasure of the constitutional provisions but also de facto an erasure of the CRS because of this case precedent. And so I'm wondering if you and your organization would accept an amendment to that language that said the General Assembly shall establish by law the operation of games, just striking it entirely, or reference not oversight but regulation.

No, I'll give it a shot. I don't recall that case, and I know they talked about it earlier. I'm sorry. intention at all Right now the legislature can change who regulates charitable gaming It right in our statute. And that's granted through the Constitution. So when it comes to the regulation, it's already established. Now, Representative Luck, were you talking about the newspaper article? I'm sorry, I don't remember. But we would love to look at the amendment. And if it works, great. But we need to work with our sponsors and see what's going on with that.

Madam Chair, may I dialogue? Yes, please. Okay. Let's go through the bill. Well, let me go through a little bit of information. And at the outset, I'm going to put on the record that I, too, am an elk. I'm a member of Lodge 17 in Denver. My husband is currently the exalted ruler of Lodge 17. And he's also a games manager. We have 10 games managers that have been trained through the lodge, so I'm intimately familiar with the requirements and procedures of operating under the current rules and obligations of provisions. So I just want to make sure I put that on the record so everybody knows that I have that connection to this issue. I've been going back and forth over whether that requires me to disqualify myself. Under the technical rules of 21C, it does not. and given the nature of the conversation today, I feel that it's important that I act in my legislative responsibility with that acknowledgement to the group. So I want to start on page three, and page three you're striking so much language that goes to the regulation and information there. And you're specifically striking no game and substituting games of chance, no game of chance pursuant to subsection two. So by striking pursuant to subsection two, you are broadening the game of chance issue from what's in the Constitution. So notwithstanding your commitment that what you're looking at is regular bingo, regular bingo or regular pull tabs, once you strike that language, Mr. Kyle, are you not opening up the process to games of chance as defined elsewhere in the statute by its definition including other games of chance?

I just got my bill out so I could reference it. I'm starting on page 3. 3?

On line 2. On line 2. Okay.

which would have included the limitation of only bingo and raffles, with games of chance. does not that open it up to all games of chance?

Okay, then we can move on. My good colleague from Penrose asked if I consult my experts here. I don't know if you drafted the bills or if you can answer that.

Rep. Espinoza, would you like to have the bill drafter come up?

Okay, let's turn to page four.

Mr. Henry, you're still in dialogue. Mr. Kyle.

But this can be interpreted that way, yes. I agree with you. I think most of that stuff is taken up in statute anyways.

Okay, but that's not what this does, and so we have to focus on that, and it doesn't tell the voters that you're eliminating all these sections by moving this to a ballot initiative in your final language. That's why I want to go through each of the sections that are currently in the – that you're striking the language for so everybody understands what we would be doing if we voted for this bill. The next issue – and you've talked a little bit about this – is that only bona fide members of any organization may participate in the management or operation of such game. So my understanding, and I know my own club, our bartender, actually he demitted and now he is a member of our club, but we specifically hired him because he was not a member of our club because we think that bar management should be done by someone who's not intimately related to the club management because you get into all sorts of conflicts if you've got standards for members. But this subsection B would allow non-members to come in and be part of this charitable contribution. Would it not?

The hardest part for nonprofits is help.

Right, which takes me nicely to my next question. And my next question is, notwithstanding all the wonderful work that I know you do in terms of the contributions and charitable organizations, doesn't a good percentage of that money remain with the nonprofit itself to run the management and the organization, the buildings and the structure that you have for the purposes of the nonprofit's existence? It all doesn't go out to third parties, does it?

I know the ELKS sort of operate a little bit differently, so if any of our ELKS members can talk about it, because I know some of that money at least can be used because we also qualify as nonprofits to help sustain the organization and the clubs. Am I wrong in that?

Okay. And we're eliminating a requirement there. And then yeah so I guess let see I also just want to talk about games managers I think games managers themselves Under the current rules, and this I know can be the difficult issue, but under the current rules, games managers must be on site when games are being operated. Would it be anybody's intention not to have that happen?

Am I wrong?

I've run into a situation where American Legion was trying to sell pull tabs, and they were not allowed to do so because there was no games manager on site. And, you know, the revenue declined after that was enforced. So it'd be nice to make some exceptions. Okay. And I appreciate that under this proposal, that would be what you'd be opening the door to is some of those exceptions. And I guess that's one of the greatest concerns I have with this bill as proposed is right now we already have protections to ensure that these programs are being managed under the supervision of somebody who's been trained by the rules. at the Secretary of State. And as proposed, those might go away. And we would also be paying those individuals, which could create a conflict of interest. I have no further questions at this time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And the representative next to me, I think my biggest want or worry was on page three that you struck no game of chance pursuant. And then we added in all these other things. So I think that the bill is not doing what you intend for it to do. I think that bingo and raffles support a lot of nonprofits and good things in our communities. but the way that it's written by striking so much of the regulations, like the entire net proceeds of any game shall be exclusively devoted to the lawful purposes of organizations permitted to conduct such games. I know that you guys are not bad actors, but there are bad actors. And I think what's going to happen is the bad actors are going to take over what the good actors are doing. And that is my biggest concern about the way this is written. And I guess my question, Mr. Kyle, Amendment C, you said almost passed. I think you said 55%. I don't know what you said about Amendment F, but why not make this a ballot initiative?

Okay, sorry.

A citizen-led.

A citizen-led.

Right.

Mr. Kyle?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So when you read the oversight of Operation of Games of Chance by organizations, which is not just including bingo and raffles, does that give you pause?

Which line are you referring to?

I would totally agree.

I'm sorry, Madam Chairman.

That is not our intent. We don't want slot machines. We don't want dice. We don't want skill games. We want to be able to go ahead and utilize bingo raffles and that is our main source of playing games. Now, two years ago, you all passed a law that we now have, Strip Bingo, which created a new bingo game. And so we have been doing that for the last two years and that's been very effective. But it goes to show that the legislature did go ahead and work with us, and we got a new bingo game. And that's what our intent would be. That would be the example.

Yes, just based on that last answer, Madam Chair.

Mr. Kyle.

Representative Wynn and then Representative Bottoms.

Sir, if you can just identify yourself when you speak. I don't know that I have the individual on the end.

Mr. Lemon.

Representative Bottoms, and then we'll go to Vice Chair Clifford.

Mr. Lemon.

Yes, thank you.

Mr. Lemon.

All right. Thank you all so much for your time and your testimony. Is there anybody else with us that wishes to provide testimony? If so, come forward at this time. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is now closed. Members, I don't know how you all are feeling, but I feel like there are a lot of questions still to be answered on this bill. So I am going to lay it over to a future date. So stay tuned in terms of when we will hear that bill next. I do want to acknowledge that as of right now, WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING SCHEDULED FOR STATE AFFAIRS FOR NEXT WEEK. THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE HARD WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN PUTTING IN. AND, WELL, JUST A MINUTE. FOR ALL OF THE HARD WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE PUT IN OVER MANY, MANY LONG NIGHTS EVERY MONDAY. SO WE WILL HOLD, WE WILL HOLD TO THAT AND LOOK FORWARD TO RECONVENING AFTER BUDGET WEEK. And otherwise, happy birthday, Representative Bradley. And we will, the committee will be adjourned. Thank you.