House Transportation, Housing & Local Government [Mar 25, 2026]

Five bills, one for action only. We'll begin with 1061. Mr. Gravey, please call the roll.

Here

Here

Representative Richardson

Here.

Vice Chair Stewart.

Madam Chair, thank you. If you don't mind, I'll talk about the amendments, and then maybe we can offer some closing comments at the end. Hopefully you received the amendment packet, the amendments on your desk today. If not, I have them here. Maybe all I should do is just make sure that we've got them up there.

I'll go ahead and recap the packet that you have in front of you. To be perfectly honest, there were some that ended up being multi-page, and so that's why they're broken off into different amendments, because you didn't have them quite ready before the deadline. But in general, the amendments do this. There is an amendment that strikes the 10%. the 10% carve out that we had as a mandate. That was obviously going to be a difficulty to overcome with the housing finance authority. That was a full stop on their side, and I respected that. And so we went to work to make sure that we carved that out. So one of the amendments does that. I wanted to show that I understood that this was a conversation, that there were some considerable concerns that the agency had. I understand the concern, particularly around the risk of setting a precedent. So I wanted to be responsive and carve that out. Further, there was an amendment that's in your packet there to change any language that was specific to IDD, specific to the Intellectually and Developingly Disabled Crowd, and instead broaden that at the request of Disability Law Colorado to the HCBS waiver crowd. What that did is it basically expanded the scope of who would be eligible for the LIHTC the low housing tax credits to not just be the IDD community Granted, a vast majority of the HCBS waiver community are IDD, but it did broaden that out just a little bit. There's another amendment in there that came directly from the Douglas County Housing Partnership, somebody that I know that I've worked very closely with in the affordable housing space. and then also this was something that the developers had wanted to see and that is to bring in DOLA, Department of Local Affairs, to be able to offer some wraparound programming to it as well through voucher systems. So there was that amendment. There are other amendments in there that went a little bit further that struck to a reporting period asking Colorado Housing Finance Authority for a mandatory reporting period. I don't know that necessarily they would have been particularly thrilled about that. But the reason that you're getting these amendments and the reason that you're not hearing me read these amendments, for a good reason, because what I'm hoping to do is to provide these for you to be able to read through and perhaps use this as a groundwork for the future. this uh this is an area in which i want to continue working it's very close in the affordable housing space in general obviously it's a little bit more towards a disabled crowd i believe and i hope at the risk of sounding repetitive i hope that i've been able to establish that um that i'm very i have a lot of concerns in the affordable housing sector uh and it's obvious that i have a lot of concerns with how to be able to help a community like the intellectually and developmentally disabled community within that sector and be able to ensure that we are doing the right thing for them on a long-term basis. Because right now, I'll reiterate one stat that I find profound from my opening comments when I first sat down with this bill, and that is that over 20,000 members of the IDD community are currently residing with parents that are 60 years of age or older. That's a freight train and it's coming right at us and I'm hoping to be able to work within that space to be able to solve that because these parents want to know that their IDD kids are going to be cared for after they no longer have the ability to do that themselves I very much appreciate my co-prime coming on and and sticking with me as we navigated these conversations I want to just say thank you also to policy staff on my side, my policy team. We started this work in the interim. They worked very, very hard on this. The policy originally came from the Wellspring community. You all heard directly in testimony from the Wellspring community and their unity on Park Street. And you heard from the stars, those that are within that community and those that that we're trying to work to help. This bill came from them, not to support them, but to be able to do more of what they do in other communities, inclusive, supportive communities throughout the front range. I also want to thank the patients of the chair and committee for working with me to reschedule this through the last few weeks as we able to sit down and work with the Housing Finance Authority work with developers work with the stakeholders in this We leaving a door open For later discussions And today I'm going to take this off the table. Because I don't believe that we're at the place to where I feel like it's right to put this committee that I know has a heart for this policy. in a position to have to make a decision that perhaps would leave me in an area to where I'm putting you all in a bad spot and unable to do work down the road. So I'm hoping to gain some good graces. I'm hoping to get your ear for next session. And with that, I respectfully ask for postponing indefinitely of this 1061.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the sponsor for letting me tag along. And, you know, as we learn being down here or down there across the street, you don't always get things right the first time, but then you go back and you work to make it better the next time. So I'm committed to doing that, too.

I've never actually spiked a bill before, so what is the exact motion? Is it that I move to postpone indefinitely? House Bill 1061. Postpone indefinitely House Bill 1061.

I know.

I did.

I did.

Representatives Basenecker.

Brooks.

Jackson.

Lindsay.

Wynn.

Pascal.

Phillips.

Richardson.

Sucla.

Velasco.

Weinberg.

Vice Chair Stewart.

Madam Chair.

I haven't even caught up. I saw some other things coming up that were like.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Hello, colleagues. I'm here to present Senate Bill 26026 concerning increasing the gross vehicle weight rating limit limit for a passenger motor vehicle for which the use of a child restraint system is required. So this bill is a state trooper bill. The bill is an important adjustment to the definition of motor vehicles that is currently used in CRS 42-4-236, child restraint systems required. In the current definition, it states that motor vehicle means a passenger car, pickup truck or a van, minivan, or a sport utility vehicle with a gross vehicle weight, or a GVWR, of less than 10,000 pounds, meaning that a motor vehicle that has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds is exempt from child restraint regulations outlined in the CRS 424-236. The current framework in CRS 424236, you'll have memorized by the time we're done, it's outdated. So the metric used in the statute of GVWR of 10,000 pounds was selected because of its use in federal interstate commerce regulations. So the intent was to exempt various categories of vehicles from child restraint systems, as well as other large vehicles, such as school and commercial buses. So the law was conceived when a 10,001-pound vehicle was almost certainly a commercial truck. And with that, I will pass it to my co-sponsor.

AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate that. Her font is a lot bigger than mine. Given the increasing size of vehicles sold to Colorado, a vehicle above 10,000 pounds could easily be a family-owned pickup truck used for personal use. There are several vehicles on our roadways that have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. These can include medium-duty trucks such as Ford Super Duty 350, crew cab with a GVWR of up to 13,000 pounds, a Ram 3500 crew cab that has a GVWR of up to 14,000 pounds, and a Chevy or GMC Hummer EV pickup that can have a GVWR of over 10,000 pounds, all of which are used for personal use. It is unfair that a family driving a Honda Accord is technically treated differently than a family choosing to drive an oversized pickup truck. as far as child restraint system regulations are concerned. This bill specifically writes that by including heavier vehicles under the motor vehicle statute, which is used specifically in the child restraint systems required by statute. And for the rule legislators on the panel, I just want to make it clear it exempts farm equipment. That doesn't touch anything like that. We made sure of that, and that's all we have.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be very respectful of your time. And good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Colonel Matthew Packard. I have the honor of serving as the chief of the Colorado State Patrol and proud to provide testimony today in support of a bill that, as Representative Leder mentioned, came from actually one of our troopers in a conversation that I had with him as he was giving me a ride down in the San Luis Valley. But I'll start, number one, by again thanking Representative Leader and Assistant Minority Leader Winter for their leadership in helping us bring this bill to the committee today. They said all of the right things. This bill is intended to help ensure that our laws are protecting our most vulnerable passengers as they're traveling around the state with their families and their caregivers. AS SAID, THERE WAS A CHANGE IN LAW SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE AND A CONSTRUCT OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT MOVED IT FROM 10 TO 16,000 POUNDS AND WE JUST DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE UNINTENTIONALLY REMOVE THE CHILD SAFETY REQUIREMENT CHILD PASSENGER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE VEHICLES IN THAT SAME WINDOW. SO THIS JUST CLEANS THAT UP. IT AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, IT DOESN'T IMPACT SCHOOL BUSES OR FARM VEHICLES OR ANY OF THE OTHER VEHICLES. making sure that kids that are riding in the backseat of F-350s or the big Hummer electrical vehicles, those types of things that are hauling families are also required to make sure those children are appropriately restrained. So I've also been advised that we have our partners at Children's Hospital that might not be able to make it. I'm not sure if they're online or not, but they wanted to let you know that they are also in support of this bill. So with that, thank you for your time. I'm happy to take questions.

You have me enough. I'm good.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good bill vote yes, and the only reason we didn't, we exempt it. I almost wanted to put it in the farm equipment because I wanted to protect those child labor laws. But we have no amendments on that, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. It's a good bill. Vote yes.

In the famous words of Pink Floyd, leave them kids alone. Good bill. Vote yes.

AML no Which one are you What are you Vice Chair Vice Chair Stewart Thank you Madam Speaker I move Senate Bill Oh my God

I move Senate Bill 26 to the committee of the whole with a very, very favorable recommendation. Second.

Representatives Basenecker.

Brooks.

Jackson.

Lindsey.

Wynn.

Pascal.

Phillips.

Richardson.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Respectfully, yes.

Vice Chair Stewart.

Madam Chair.

It is an honor to be here to present House Bill 1330, a change to how Colorado does entertainment districts. So as you know, or likely know, Colorado is home to over a dozen entertainment districts. These are designated areas where residents are able to mill about and admire good art and music and enjoy time spent with neighbors in a relaxed atmosphere. These include, for example, the Park Meadows Vista Entertainment District in Rep. Bradley's beloved Douglas County and Representative Stewart's Belmar Entertainment District in Jeffco. The current bill, 1330, is brought in response to outreach that the LED, the Liquor Enforcement Division, did following a survey of local licensing authorities. The survey results indicated that current law is overly prescriptive, particularly with respect to size of the districts and container requirements. Under current law, entertainment districts must have two licensees, think bars or clubs, that have a combined 20,000 square feet of operating space. This bill would lower that requirement to 5,000 square feet. Under current law, the beverage containers used in a common consumption area must be no larger than 16 ounces and have 24-point font. The statute is very granular in this respect, and this bill would move many of these items to rulemaking. to be clear current law already allows a local licensing authority to set the hours of operation and consumption including allowances past 2am I know that you have heard this past week a lot about this Glendale has an entertainment district allowing establishments in the district to serve alcohol until 3.45 a.m. and for patrons to drink on premises until 4.30 a.m. The city of Blackhawk has an entertainment district with promotional associations allowing 24-7 alcohol service and consumption. You may hear from witnesses that this is a legal gray area. It is not. You may hear that we should have a statewide 2 a.m. cutoff. If the proponents of such a position want to advance that type of measure, I respectfully suggest that they do so in a stand-alone bill. Know, however, that restricting consumption to 2 a.m. statewide would be more restrictive than what current law presently allows. I and my co-prime, he's not here, but I'll speak for the both of us, we are of course sensitive to the perils of alcohol abuse and the dangers of drunk and impaired driving. I don't need to tell any of you this because it has impacted every single person in the legislature, and it is indeed tragic. At the same time, there's no data showing that entertainment districts are the issue or that entertainment districts have led to increased DUIs or traffic fatalities. To the contrary, after 15 years of having entertainment districts, the data and experience suggest strongly that entertainment districts can operate in an effective manner that increases new business development, economic support of the localities that have them, increased sales tax revenue, greater tourism, and increased patronage of businesses. The local licensing authorities surveyed indicated that there were no noticeable negative impacts, more so than any other liquor establishment in the cities where they operate, and that the entertainment districts are well organized and managed. This is a bill that would provide locals with increased ability to manage and operate these districts, and we ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker Brotem. That's exactly right. necessity is the mother of invention and innovation. And we all recall during the pandemic time when we weren't allowed to be together with each other, allowing businesses to have outdoor dining, allowing, cutting off traffic, automobile traffic, allowing for more walkable spaces, allowing people to gather out, outside had tremendous benefits and in many cases probably saved certain areas from economic ruin. Thankfully, we're past the pandemic. My goodness, who wants to go back and think of that time? But we do recognize that there are benefits to spaces where people are able to gather together and enjoy each other's company outside in a more free and relaxed way than current law allows. These entertainment districts, as they're currently set up, have some pretty onerous requirements, and tweaking them would make our law a little more perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Paschal. Yeah, so we heard from feedback from some localities that the current size limitation would prevent the establishment of larger entertainment districts that some localities are eyeing. And so this is to provide that type of flexibility. And we're going to have witnesses who can testify to what they're envisioning along those lines, and I would encourage you to ask questions.

Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Phillips. Of course, as you note, Thornton itself does not have an entertainment district. I made sure I looked that up before I came before your committee. And certainly, you know, there's the stated concern or expressed concern that folks would leave a surrounding entertainment district and then proceed to drive. There's no data that shows that 2 to 4 a.m. is more dangerous than 12 to midnight. And I would also note that there's no data showing that the Glendale Entertainment District, which operates until, like I said, service until 345 in the morning with patrons consuming alcohol until 430 leads to any sort of spike or increase in incidents in surrounding Denver, even though Denver totally surrounds Glendale. So the data isn't there to support it. I do understand the concern. No one here wants to promote intoxicated or impaired driving. And I think we all share that goal. The point of this bill isn't to increase that in any way, shape, or form. I think some of the best things that we can do is increase knowledge around the dangers of impaired driving. We can support our ride shares you know who often have increased or you know rates during you know premium pricing during the 12 to 2 a hours And if we were to you know look at ways to be more collaborative on that front, we could probably do a better job encouraging people not to get behind the wheel at that time. Representative Phillips.

Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is around if areas like Glendale, if they already have this and are able to do this, then what's preventing? Why do we need this legislation if there's areas that already are allowed to do this?

Representative Soper, would you like to say anything by way of introduction?

Additional questions? Bill sponsors, would you like to do a proponent and then alternate or? Did I have that? I'm sorry if I did. Okay, great. Okay, so at the proponent's request, we're doing oppose panel first. Is that correct, Rep. Woodrow? Okay, and we might have to move things a little bit because some people have to go. So we will try for Rebecca Green and Ms Green the person who has the 5 p hard stop Can you bring them up? Okay, and then we can do... And we can bring up Ms. Houston, Kazzy Houston, online. And Ms. Green, if you want to go ahead and... Okay. So please proceed. We are doing only two minutes. And just a moment of clarification. Blanca requires translation. So that request, unfortunately, had to come in. Before. Okay. Got it. Two days ahead. Okay. Okay. All right.

And I'm sorry we didn't have enough advance notice to be able to translate, but please proceed.

Thank you. And please introduce yourself, say who you represent, if anyone, and please proceed. We're doing two minutes.

Thank you. And Ms. Houston, I don't believe we have you yet, but we'll go ahead with Ms. Shelton, who is online.

Do not see any questions. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Rep. Pascal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to direct this at Ms. Green, and if you are not the right person, Maybe there's somebody in a later panel, but we heard from the introduction that there's no statistics that support the notion that if drinking establishments are open longer, there will be more, you know, drunk driving crashes. And you said otherwise. Could you just speak to that?

Vice Chair Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Ms. Green as well. I'm just curious what your understanding of the current local authority is to set consumption times past 2 a.m.

Okay. I don't see any additional questions. Thank you so much for joining us. We're going to continue at the sponsor's request with opposed panels. I got Ms. Shelton. Let's see. I have two different lists. Terry Vogel. Erin Agui. Oh, she went. I'm sorry. Craig Mansfield. Michael Deaton. Or is that the person whose testimony was read? Isaac Leon. Courtney Sutton, I believe is online. Duke Roomley. Okay, we will begin with who we have, and we're doing two minutes today. If you want to introduce yourself, say who you represent, if anyone. But if they're in the room, they can. I'll come speak to you in a moment. Let's proceed. Two minutes, please.

Thank you. Please proceed. We're doing two minutes today. There's a tiny button at the bottom there.

Thank you. And we're going to call up Jessica Dotter to join the panel and we'll go online to Ms. Sutton.

Thank you. And Officer Deaton.

Thank you Another call for Jessica Dotter Okay committee we have two folks online two folks in front of us for questions Do not see any. Thank you for your time. We will continue at the request of the sponsor with a pose panel. Or with it, we're going to go amend, I guess. So that would be Skylar McKinney, Kristen Hartman, and then why don't we call up Elizabeth Haskell, if you're here, and then we will add, did we get Duke Rimley? If you're here, please join us. Russ Shaw and Isaac Leon if you've been able to get the link and join us and I see Ms. Haskell and you are neutral so give us two minutes of neutrality

Thank you. We'll go online to Mr. Leon. Hello?

Please introduce yourself and please proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Shaw.

Thank you. And Bria Kinsella, are you here? Please come forward. and Erica Jansen. Okay, great. Ms. Jansen, please proceed.

Thank you. And then I'm just here for emotional support. Okay. Okay. Appreciate it. I have not been seeing Kristen Hartman, Skylar McKinney, Duke Roomley. Just last call. Bria Kinsella. And I think Jessica Dotter had to leave. Cassie Houston. Okay. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to testify, amend, or oppose to House Bill 1330 and has not had an opportunity? Okay. So, committee, we have two folks in front of us and two folks online for questions. Vice Chair Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Ms. Haskell. Same question I asked earlier of Ms. Green. What is your understanding of the current authority that the statute gives municipalities to adjust open times for entertainment districts? Ms. Haskell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Currently, under the entertainment district statutes, municipalities can set the hours of the common consumption areas. And so right now, they could set them at 4 o'clock like Shotgun Willies and the gaming towns do. There are other districts that have hours that are 1 a.m. or they could be lower or that don't go beyond what the 2 a.m. is. So they currently already have that authority right now. Thank you. Okay. I don't see any other questions. Thank you very much for your time. We're going to move into proponents. And that is Josh Blanchard, Tristan Kemp. Watkins and Chief Packard, Chief Newbanks, Sheriff Brown, Ms. Stone Principato. We have room for one more here. Britt Deal. And we'll begin with Ms. Stone Principato. We're doing two minutes today. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Michelle Stone Prince Pado. I'm the director of the Liquor and Tobacco Enforcement Division. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on House Bill 261330. The division supports the bill because it makes targeted modernization of the current law, designed to remove outdated barriers and promote coordination and collaboration approach and advance economic vitality while ensuring public safety remains a central priority. Currently, the law allows for local licensing authorities to set the hours of operation for common consumption area this bill would provide the same authority for entertainment districts the bill decreases the total number of square footage for two liquor licenses premises from 20 000 square feet to 5 000 to create an entertainment district the bill would remove the 100 000 acre size of an entertainment district but prohibits the entertainment district from crossing jurisdictional boundaries a single municipality city county or unincorporated area The bill would also prohibit customers from bringing alcohol into the licensed premises that was purchased from another licensed premise. The bill gives the division rulemaking authority to preserve public safety and to proper regulation to control the sale of alcohol beverages. The sponsors intend to offer an amendment that will require city or county commissioners the ability to consult with police departments before creating an entertainment district. This bill modernizes entertainment district laws and empowers and enables local governments to work effectively with liquor licensees in their community and reinforces statewide guardrails and upholds public safety. The Liquor Enforcement Division respectfully requests the committee to give a pass to this bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions, and thank you for the opportunity to be in favor of this bill. Chief Packard. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. again my name is Matthew Packard I'm the chief of the Colorado State Patrol and here testifying in support of House Bill 26 1330 being respectful of your time I know you've had a lot of testimony today I'll echo a lot of the testimony you've already heard from my colleague from the Department of Revenue I will add also stop for the my understanding of amendment L zero zero one that requires coordination with local law enforcement as these licenses are being considered I think that is a really important and valuable step to ensure that from a that we can have resources in the places that need to be for these types of establishments. And I should say entertainment districts. I'd also just share, I'm asked a lot about crash data and our data specifically around entertainment districts. And I can just specifically around the gaming communities where we have a more immediately close footprint around entertainment districts I can say our data is at best inconclusive as far as an impact on crashes and arrests And with that, I'll be happy to take any questions. Mr. Blanchard. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Josh Blanchard. I serve as the Director of Colorado Creative Industries within the Office of Economic Development and International Trade, and I'm here to testify in support of House Bill 1330. CCI's mission is to promote, support, and expand Colorado's creative industries to drive economic growth, create jobs, and enhance quality of life. Through the Creative District Program, we advance these goals by supporting place-based economic development and community vitality. We anticipate that some of Colorado's 37 designated creative districts will be interested in participating in or learning from the proposed entertainment district model. Creative districts serve as an effective tool for revitalization, strengthening community identity, and increasing engagement among residents and visitors. While outcomes vary, many districts have successfully driven higher sales, increased foot traffic, tourism, visibility, and overall economic activity. Some overlap with Main Street programs such as Ridgeway, Trinidad, and La Honta. Others overlap with business improvement districts such as Rhino and Denver or downtown development authorities such as Aurora and Colorado Springs and further leverage complementary funding and investment strategies. These districts also foster collaboration through shared infrastructure, marketing, and event programming, an approach that entertainment districts could extend and expand through shared consumption areas and coordinated activations. Our experience shows that successful districts rely on shared purpose, strong branding, sustainable funding, and effective governance. Early engagement with residents and business remains essential to preempting concerns and ensuring success. Importantly, House Bill 1330 lowers barriers to entry while preserving local control, allowing communities, especially rural and smaller communities, to tailor districts, entertainment districts, to their specific needs. CCI views entertainment districts as complementary to support artists, creative businesses, and cultural spaces, and for these reasons, we respectfully urge your support of House Bill 1330. Thank you very much. And we'll go online. Sorry, my eyesight isn't what it should be. Tristan Watkins. Sorry about that. Mr. Watkins, please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Justin Watkins and I'm the business support director for the Office of Economic Development and International Trade testifying in support of HB 261330. Our division supports House Bill 1330 because it updates the statute to reflect how communities are currently using entertainment districts. The current framework was created in 2011, and while it established a strong foundation, we've seen over time that there are unnecessary barriers in statute that make it harder for local governments, especially smaller governments, to use this tool effectively. Things like rigid size requirements and overly prescriptive operational details don't reflect how these districts function in practice. While I would defer to DOR on rules implementation, I can speak to the economic impact of entertainment districts as a proven tool. According to the Urban Land Institute, well-designed entertainment districts can significantly increase foot traffic increase spending at small businesses and create walkable activated spaces that benefit not just the business inside the district but surrounding areas as well Right now some of the statutory requirements make it harder for smaller or more rural communities to participate For example, reducing the minimum size of an entertainment district from 20,000 square feet to only 5,000 square feet allows for the main street of a rural community to offer an attractive and economically beneficial space for community members and local businesses to come together. This legislation is about removing friction in statute so that local governments can use a tool that's already working in a way that fits their needs. This creates new opportunities for economic growth for the small businesses that shape a community's culture. For these reasons, our office is in favor of House Bill 1330 and respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Deal, if you'd like to unmute yourself, we're doing two minutes. Please introduce yourself. Great. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Britt Diehl. I'm the Vice President of External Affairs at the Downtown Denver Partnership, and we are proud to manage and advocate for our center city and the economic heart of the Rocky Mountain West. And we're proud to be here today to ask for your support in House Bill 1330 and urge you to move this legislation forward today. Offering local authorities greater flexibility in how and when entertainment districts are able to operate makes incredible sense so that each community can operate in the context of their own individual communities and needs. This flexibility is smart and will serve districts and businesses of all size across our state. Removing the 100-acre cap opens real possibilities in places like downtown Denver, where large-scale revitalization efforts are taking shape in ways that are bringing more play to our center city. In fact, in the recently adopted downtown area plan, we call for new play districts across our city, and it's about more than alcoholic beverages. It's about gathering and community in a time when we need it more than ever, not to mention economic benefit. I mentioned downtown revitalization. Just a few walks away from where you're sitting is Denver's first city-established consumption zone on 16th Street at Klinarm Plaza. We have seen tremendous benefit to the participating businesses. It has enlivened a previously unused public space, and we see that as an example of what is possible under a bill that allows for greater flexibility and more options for cities and districts to enable types of entertainment districts for the betterment of our city. So with that, I urge your support and thank you so much for your consideration today. Thank you. Chief Eubanks. Good afternoon, members of the committee, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Brent Newbanks, Chief of Police for the Meade Police Department, and I'm honored to testify before this committee and represent the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police in requesting an amendment to this bill. The Colorado Chiefs of Police agree that this bill would provide a necessary service to the citizens of Colorado and there are potentially public safety considerations when communities make these types of decisions. We support local control on these issues. We are simply asking that law enforcement have an opportunity to voice any public safety concerns when the governing body is making these decisions. decisions. Expanding and modifying permitted consumption areas can contribute to issues of public safety concern in some cases. Having a chance to address these concerns prior to formalizing the approvals makes the most sense and provides the best information for the decision making process Expanding establishment hours in some communities will create burdens on law enforcement that don currently exist but accounting for that prior to the decisions being made and finalized communities can remain safe and feel better served. We urge the members of the committee to vote for this amendment by giving law enforcement an opportunity to voice concerns prior to any decision. Helps keep our communities safe. As a Chief of Police and Representative of of the Colorado Association of Chesa Police, we support the amended version of this bill and urge the members of the committee to vote for it. Thank you for your time, and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you, and Sheriff Brown. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for this time to sit before you. My name is Tyler Brown. I'm the sheriff of Arachau County and the immediate past president of the County Sheriffs of Colorado. I first want to start my testimony off by honoring those individuals who came forward bravely to share their stories of loved ones lost. No one wants to see anyone lose their lives to impaired drivers. But I do sit before you today, supporting 26-13-30, from the County Sheriff's of Colorado's perspective, this bill represents a practical and needed update to Colorado's entertainment district framework. By requiring your entertainment districts to exist within a single municipality, a single city and county, or a defined unincorporated area, the bill establishes clear jurisdictional boundaries. For law enforcement, this clarity is essential. When these lines of authority are unmistakable, coordination between emergency services and local regulators become far more efficient and effective. Next, removing the 100-acre cap and reducing the minimum premises size from 20,000 to 5,000 square feet gives smaller and mid-sized communities across our state the ability to participate in a structured, regulated model. These levels, this levels the playing field. It allows locally owned establishments, not just large venues to operate within the framework that supports orderly management, crowd control, and responsible operation. The bill's provisions allowing local licensing authorities to determine days and hours of operations is critical in coordination with public safety. This coordination varies dramatically between urban, suburban, and rural areas, giving local officials the authority to tailor operating rules to their community-specific needs, helps ensure staffing levels, enforcement capacity, and emergency response resources are properly aligned. Finally, the requirement that a licensed premises connected to a common consumption area may only serve alcohol in these spaces remains essential safeguard. This maintains accountability, supports compliance checks, and reinforces responsible alcohol service key components of preventing disorderly behavior and protecting both residents and visitors in some house bill 26 1330 strengthens local control enhances public safety coordination and supports well-managed entertainment districts that can operate without overburdening public safety i respectably urge you to support 1330 thank you for your time thank you committee four folks online three folks in front of us for questions representative stewart thank you madam chair This is for Ms. Stone Principato. Same question that I've been asking. What is your understanding of the current authority that entertainment districts already have around operating hours? Ms. Stone Principato. Thank you, Madam Chair. So currently, the local licensing authority can establish an entertainment district, and they have the ability to establish the hours of the common consumption area and those licenses within that, with the notwithstanding language that's currently in statute. So they have that ability. Currently. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one quick follow-up that I haven't asked, but is it your understanding then that a blanket restriction to 2 a.m. would actually be rolling back existing authority? Ms. Principato. Thank you, Madam Chair. Something before Principato. Yes, it's Director Stone Principato. You're fine. Yes, I would think you would be rolling back the law. And currently right now, I would say that we have not seen a lot of problems with the entertainment districts. And so you would be rolling that back. Ms. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Rep. Rep. Vice. Stewart. It's okay. We'll just roll through all of them today. So, and I totally lost my train of thought. That's okay. Have you seen many entertainment districts actually push their operating hours past what is kind of standard in their jurisdiction? Ms. Stone Principato. Thank you, Madam Chair. We only have two currently in the state that I'm aware of that have rolled it past those times, and that was in the city of Glendale and also up in our Blackhawk. And I'm sorry, there's three, Crip Creek as well. Also for Ms. Stone-Principato, so if it isn't a gray area, the bill spends two pages, pages all of three and four, clarifying this. So is it not a gray area or is it already in statute? Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think what we are trying to do with this bill is give the locals more authority for if they want to shut down the common consumption area. Some of those are outdoors. So to help with maybe there's businesses where they're in a residential area or close by communities, they'd be able to shut the common consumption area down with a different time to not cause noise disturbances, but be able to leave the liquor license at premises that are attached to the ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT TO BE OPEN. REPRESENTATIVE BASENECKER. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THIS QUESTION IS FOR PERHAPS CHIEF NEWBANKS OR SHERIFF BROWN. UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO SOME CONVERSATIONS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAPPEN WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIOR TO A NEW DISTRICT COMING ONLINE, I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD TALK ABOUT WHAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS LOOK LIKE PERHAPS AT PRESENT WITH DISTRICTS OR EVEN ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SERVE ALCOHOL INSIDE OF YOUR JURISDICTIONS. WHAT ARE YOU HOPING FOR INSIDE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WHAT DO YOU HOPE THE OUTCOME OF THAT NECESSARY CHECK-IN WOULD BE? SO WOULD WE COULD IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER JUST RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE'LL CALL ON YOU. SHERIFF BROWN. Fantastic. Madam Chair, thank you. Representative Faisnicker, thank you for that question. What I'm looking at is currently when we have special events, say at our fairgrounds, they do have to present an application to participate in serving alcohol if they have that. We do run a background check. We ensure that the servers are appropriately trained, and then we give a recommendation for approval of that particular license. And so I'm looking for for that exact same type of interaction making sure that we haven had continuous calls for service at this particular establishment We have the ability to enforce current statutes for over serving and making sure that they're in compliance with every other state law. We do a background check on those individuals. I have a part-time investigator that's dedicated to those and they would be participating in this process as well so that we had the ability to provide the necessary information to that deciding body from the law enforcement perspective. Representative Nguyen. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this question is to members of the panel. One question is, I'm a firm believer of legal precedence. Has there been any other, I guess, states or other communities that has extended these hours with entertainment districts in the United States of America? And I have a follow-up question as well. Would Oedit be the best person to answer that? Mr. Blanchard. Thank you for the question, and thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any specific insight onto jurisdictions throughout the country that have extended consumption hours for entertainment districts. There is data through the Economic Prosperity Report through the AEP6, which is a national study that does show that creative districts and cultural districts do extend opportunities for economic development, economic growth, jobs, other factors of success that I can speak to, but nothing specific as it relates to the extension of those hours. Thank you. Representative Nguyen. Thank you, Madam Chair. And my other question is to law enforcement or to anyone in enforcement with liquor. I guess after hearing some testimony from opponents of the bill, we have some concerns, of course, with potential rise of DUIs or other issues of, I guess, concerns with that. I would love to hear any feedback or responses from either our law enforcement or liquor enforcement as well on those statements earlier. Chief, you banks? New banks. Madam Chair, thank you for the question. That's certainly a concern that we might address at the local level for given the specifics to what the entertainment district looks like. And if there is a consideration of extending hours, certainly those concerns should be addressed at that time. And I think that's exactly what we're asking for in this amendment is that opportunity to voice our concerns. each each case is individual and and each locality has its own circumstances so we just feel like that's best handled at the local level where those discussions can happen productively and we certainly would like to have a voice in those and be able to make those assessments as to realistically what the results of that might look like and what our concerns would be and how those would be best addressed. Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And my question kind of is a continuation of what Rep. Wynn asked. And this is for our law enforcement partners. If we know that there are, you know, like peak times when people are out partying, like, you know, holidays, weekends, stuff like that And so I would anticipate that during those peak times your departments are getting more calls for you know assistance or response or whatever And so if this bill is aiming to expand the business the number of businesses who are allowed to operate at these later times have you all, what is your response and have you all considered, you know, just, you know, your workforce and your resources and capacity to be able to respond to these increased hours and these increased number of calls. And, you know, is your, you know, at a time when we have, we all are facing, you know, limited budgets, how are you all preparing to respond from an operational budgetary perspective to these increased number of calls? Chief Newbanks. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. just the way that we would respond to those concerns currently certainly we evaluate each situation for those types of concerns and we make our schedules and our staffing plans according to those in a small community such as mine it's quite common for us to bolster our staffing for special events in the town whether and it's certainly a consideration for that is whether or not those include an alcohol permit i think just as sheriff brown alluded to we're we're quite in the habit of making those assessments and and reporting back to our governing bodies and making the request for the appropriate coverage and taking into account any issues that would be foreseeable and that's part of our current operations and that would be part of what we would expect to be accounted for in these discussions at the local level thank you and rep jackson just a quick follow-up and i would like to hear from uh sheriff brown but i guess my question is do you anticipate increased workload and an increased number of calls that you all have to respond to as a result of this legislation passing Chief Newbanks. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. I don't think there's, I mean, this bill makes a few changes, but it doesn't require extension of hours. So I think each one of those discussions will happen independently. and in some cases there would be greater concerns than in other cases depending on the communities involved. So it's really hard to say that we would expect additional calls just based on these changes, not knowing how many communities would participate in this or take advantage of the change is being made. So difficult to say. And I've not heard that concern in specifically from members of the organization. Rep Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think my question is for Josh, but for whoever can answer it. So clearly, I share everybody's concern about drunk driving, but I need some clarification regarding the process. So when I used to be in the licensing authority and all we did was we made recommendations to the local city council And I was also on city council and then on city council we would vote. So regarding the hours, the 2 a.m. or 4 a.m., I'd need clarification that the process works like that. So the licensing authority, they don't vote. they can only make a recommendation to the local city council, and then the city council can then vote on those hours. And currently, that process is already in place to extend closing time to 4 a.m. So I think that process already exists. So my question is, what does this bill change that isn't happening already or can't happen already outside of it's applying to an entertainment district. I get that piece. But is there something else this changes on the 2 a.m., 4 a.m.? Ms. Stone-Principato. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. So currently, yes, in statute, the promotional association, the city would develop either an ordinance or resolution, then that promotional association also developed the rules for all the licensees and participants in this. So that is currently in statute. This is just allowing them to establish ordinances and resolutions regarding the common consumption area and the entertainment district. So it's making both the ability for the locals to make a differentiation there, as well as it's removing some of the barriers to licensees to participate in these. Representative Bazinecker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I'm going to follow up on that question, Director Stone, Principato as well. Is there anything in this bill that mandates a 4 a.m. or 3 a.m. or any other specific closing time? Thank you. Ms. Stone-Principato. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. No, the local licensing authority can establish whatever hours they would like to establish. Representative Baisenacker. Madam Chair, I'll have maybe two more questions if you'll indulge me. IS IS IT WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY TO CREATE RESTRICTIONS AROUND CLOSING TIMES MEANING A LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY COULD CREATE ONE OF THESE DISTRICTS BUT ALSO SAY FOR US IN THE CITY OF FOR COLINS 2AM IS THE RIGHT TIME AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO SEE HAPPEN HERE. YES SIR SO THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY CAN MAKE THOSE DECISIONS THEY CAN EITHER GO STRICTER OR LONGER THEY COULD SAY IT'S 2AM AND THAT WOULD BE THE TIME THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT WOULD CLOSE. Representative Basenacker. Thank you, Madam Chair. And last question. As I read the bill, the large, the majority of the bill is related to the size and the partnerships that are required to have these things come about. They would, the bill retains those authorities by the local licensing authority to make those very important contextual local decisions. And I just want to make sure from your perspective that I'm reading the bill the right way that at the end of the day this has more to do with removing the requirement that an entertainment district be no larger than 100 acres reducing the minimum square footage allowing a local licensing authority to establish the days and hours of operations that that is the bill and and while we may agree or disagree on hours of operation that the ability to make those decisions still lives locally as it does today Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. Yes, you are correct. You were reading that correctly. And yes, that is but as expected, the locals will be able to make those decisions. Thank you. Okay, we do need to wrap up this panel, but I do have a question for Colonel Packard. Is there not conceptually a difference between the gambling, the casinos where there is a lot of overnight stays and a hill where you can funnel and set up a checkpoint and some of these contemplated entertainment districts that are 800 acres large with a lot of egress and entry, a difference in enforcement? Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the answer to your question is yes. I think the reference to the gaming in my comments was specific to where we currently have staff that is dedicated to patrolling in the counties around the gaming areas where two of the three current licensees are existing. And so that was only the reference. And yeah, like Glendale, we don't patrol close to Glendale. And so it's just a different setting. And the gaming communities are unique individually as well. And for the law enforcement folks, do you traditionally do checkpoints at 12 or do you wait till 2 a.m.? Chief Newbanks. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. I don't know that there's a typical time for checkpoints. It is true that a lot of those occur during the evening hours. But it, again, depends on the jurisdiction. And sometimes, particularly jurisdictions that might have a university in them or something like that, have more activity later throughout the night. Other jurisdictions, there's very little activity after 10 p.m. So checkpoints in those areas might be earlier and some later. We don't typically we don't have a typical time for that, if that makes sense, given the circumstances. Thank you. Thank you. And I know, Sheriff Brown, did you want to also answer a previous question at the same time? Yeah, Madam Chair, thank you. Twofold. We don't set up our checkpoints at any particular time. And mostly what we're doing now is we're putting more deputies on the road to do traffic enforcement and not having those static checkpoints. I will go back to Rep Jackson's question about handling calls for service. I think the nice thing about having law enforcement engagement with this particular bill and providing our input allows us to be part of that ordinance development and putting requirements in there. And specifically around funding, there's many times where bars and specific entertainment areas require a certain amount of security depending on what the patronage is of the facility. And that is something that we can work with to make sure those costs are shared, not only specifically with the county, but also with those establishments that could require a certain amount of law enforcement or deputies. But we would work that out with our local licensing authority and the city councils or boards of county commissioners that would make those decisions. And the last part of that is that, again, going back to this isn't a mandatory that they have to be open past 2 a.m. This could be a very specific thing where these entertainment districts close down at 10 or 11. And it actually allows us the ability to control that a little bit more fiercely when it comes to those specific districts So thank you for the questions I appreciate the time Thank you folks We are probably over time on this panel but we really appreciate you joining us today We will fill out a last proponent panel if Rebecca Hernandez is still here Isabel Cruz Shawnee Adelson, and anyone else in the room who wishes to testify in support of this bill? And we, last call for anyone in the room who has, wants to testify on 1330 and has not had an opportunity. Okay, let's begin here. We're doing two minutes. Please introduce yourself and please proceed. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Shawnee Adelson and I'm the Executive Director of the Colorado Brewers Guild, which represents over 420 craft breweries across the state. I'm here to testify in support of House Bill 1330, which makes common sense updates to Colorado's entertainment district framework. Colorado's craft breweries are deeply invested in their local communities. Our members operate tap rooms that are anchor neighborhood commercial districts and drive tourism across the state. Entertainment districts represent an opportunity for craft breweries to participate in vibrant, walkable commercial corridors that benefit everybody. This bill makes targeted, practical changes that will allow more communities across Colorado to take advantage of the entertainment district tool and more craft breweries to participate in them. First, reducing the minimum license premises threshold for the entertainment districts from 20,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet is particularly meaningful for Colorado's craft breweries. Many of our taproom members have been excluded from entertainment districts due to this current threshold. This change opens the door for more craft breweries to participate. Second, giving the local licensing authorities more flexibility on sizes and types of serving containers as well as days and hours of operation will allow them to better serve their community. Local governments know their communities best and statewide parameters don't account for the unique character of every municipality in Colorado. Empowering the local licensing authorities to make these determinations will allow more districts to be designed in ways that reflect the needs of their communities. Finally, clarifying that only properly authorized licensees may sell or serve alcohol in common consumption areas strengthens public safety and accountability, ensuring the program operates with integrity. I respectfully encourage you to vote yes on House Bill 1330 to allow local communities to determine what's best for their own neighborhoods and allow breweries to continue to be spaces for friends and family together. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Cruz. Thank you. Hello. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Isabel Cruz. I'm here in my individual capacity, but I do have the honor of serving on Lakewood City Council representing Ward 2. Our legislative committee, which I chair, meets tomorrow morning, so we don't have a position yet. But I wanted to come here in my individual capacity to support HB 1330 and share a little bit about with you the success we've seen in Lakewood from our entertainment district and support the adjustments being proposed in this bill so other cities can establish districts that work for their local contexts as well. So we established our entertainment district in 2022, and we currently have one in Belmar. The district has helped reduce retail vacancies in Belmar to around 3 The district has also resulted in a boost in foot traffic and restaurant sales and some of this is quite quantifiable For Belmar specifically, our tax increment financing data shows that $8.5 million per year in property tax increment and a 533% increase in assessed property value since the district was established. We also know that the district draws strong visitor traffic with approximately 538,000 visits per year per month and 7.5 million annually, which has significantly increased since the establishment of our entertainment district. This has had ripple effects across the corridor around Alameda, where our Belmar district is, and we know that it's been very helpful for events that have brought our community together that would have largely honestly been family-friendly, from our Independence Day bash to holiday tree lightings and cultural celebrations. We have not seen significant safety concerns related to the establishment of our entertainment district. Drunk driving is something we take very seriously as a city, and I know our liquor authority takes very seriously their responsibility to our citizens. So I really appreciate the concerns being put forward, but I do recommend you all support this bill, support this really important community asset. So thank you. Thank you. And Ms. Hernandez.

Thank you. Committee, one person online, two folks in front of us, Vice Chair Stewart.

Council Member Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Stewart, for the question. So from the reports I asked for from staff before coming from here there have been no documented safety concerns related to specifically our Belmar Entertainment District And we know that in our establishing ordinance, it does set a 2 a.m. time cap. And so I think that that is an important piece of how we as counselors who hear from many of our constituents with concerns around many of the things you all have heard today, right? of how we're exercising our local authority and ensuring we're keeping our citizens safe in our local context. So that is what I have to share with you. I believe that is it. Thank you very much for being with us today. We already did last call so witness testimony is complete. Bill sponsors, there was talk of an amendment. I kind of gave it to Stewart so she can move it. Slokie-pokey. Oop, that got caught on the mic. Vice Chair Stewart, if you would move the amendment and then we'll ask questions.

Second.

L-001 Committee, we heard from law enforcement and the sheriffs who testified both in support and amend position that they would like to see coordination and consulting with law enforcement when a local government establishes one of these entertainment districts and common consumption areas. We heard that it's necessary to address concerns at that level from a public safety perspective. This amendment does just that, and we'd ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's an honor to be before you and to have you hear our bill. We'd encourage a yes vote. This facilitates locally driven decision making about entertainment districts. It allows the locals to set up the barriers and the parameters of in entertainment districts. Whether it's certainly on the size or moving some of the prescriptive requirements and statute to the LED rulemaking authority. We want to be able to continue to provide more local control. Every community should be able to decide what they want their community to be. Not every place is Delta. Not every place is Boulder. And certainly not every place is a cripple creek or any other town within our Colorado. But that's what makes Colorado unique, is every town gets to decide who they want to be, what they want to look like. Do they want to be one where restaurants and bars close at 8 p.m., 9 p.m., like we have in some of my towns in my district? Or do those communities that say, hey, we'd like to be able to be open much later in the evening and be able to offer that as an area within their community, the option for them to decide. how that looks and what the parameters are going to be. This is all about option. It's about the option within those local communities. And for those reasons alone, I would encourage a yes vote of this bill, but also to remind you of the testimony that we heard, for example, from LED, from the State Patrol, from some of our police members that were here today, talking about how they are able to work and that they do see this bill as a positive because they're able to work on what the local parameters would be, and they're okay with that. And so I hope the committee will be okay with that too. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. We're very grateful for the thoughtful discussion and questions on this very important piece of legislation. I just want to make a few notes, given what we heard. And before I do that, I want to echo Sheriff Brown's testimony that we honor the witnesses who came and shared their personal stories. First, with respect to the casinos, you know, they've submitted a letter. I'm not sure if you have it in your box. I can share it with you about the legality of how they operate. But just to note that they have 44,000 visitors on a typical weekend. And according to them, the vast majority do not stay at the hotels. The opponent witnesses largely testified as if the 4 a.m. closing time would be a foregone conclusion. And I want to be very clear that that's not correct. It would be up to the local licensing authorities to make recommendations to city council or county commissioners in consultation with law enforcement. You know, the key takeaway is that the push for a statewide closure at 2 a.m. would actually be more restrictive than current law. And Madam Vice Chair asked the question I think I counted three times during the hearing to three different witnesses. To be clear, it's Colorado Revised Statutes 44-3-301, subsection 11F. And it states, in pertinent part, notwithstanding any other provision of this Article 3, and that means no matter what anything else says in Article 3. Okay, notwithstanding any other provision of this Article 3, a local authority may set the hours during which a common consumption area and attached license premise may serve alcohol and the customers may consume alcohol. That's current law. There is a CML publication, Liquor and Beer Handbook, A Guide for Municipal Governments, and it addresses this issue on page 37, stating that finally the statute grants the local licensing authority the ability to increase the hours of operation of licensed establishments attached to a common consumption area. To be clear, Cripple Creek, Glendale, the casinos at Blackhawk, they don't operate in a legal gray area. They operate pursuant and in accordance with current Colorado law. Well, you know, certain members of law enforcement, FOP testified in opposition. We did hear from Sheriff Brown, Chief Newbanks, Chief Packard, that law enforcement supports this bill as amended and the updates that enhance public safety coordination. And I think, you know, Madam Vice Chair, you also made this point succinctly, that even with this authority in current law, only three entertainment districts to date have availed themselves of a 4 a.m. closing time. So the idea that this will lead to a sudden adoption of 4 a.m. times is, I believe, overstated. Local governments are still going to have to hear feedback from constituents and make their own decisions on a local level We do understand that certain opponents of the bill want to use it as an opportunity to roll back current law but respectfully, they should run a separate bill if that's their goal. I note that we continue to work with our restaurant community to ensure that no business is compelled to participate and that existing protections aren't rolled back and that these talks continue. I also want to note that Chief Packer testified that at best the data that State Patrol has is inconclusive with respect to whether these actually lead to increased incidents. And again, that is best addressed, as law enforcement stated, on the local level on a local basis. So I very much appreciate the time this early evening, late afternoon. We urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1330 as amended to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation.

Oh, seconded by Brooks.

I'm sure. Thank you. so this is uh this has been one that i strangely you know i've been looking forward to all week really because i know that there's been a lot of discussion around this and i knew that there'd be a lot of testimony uh and um i wasn't exactly sure where i was coming in like kind of the way i like to try to be you know for committees honestly um but i appreciate the testimony on both sides At the end of it, of course, I'm always going to support local control and the idea of local control. I'm not going to get up on my soapbox about that. But I know in my own community in Castle Rock, you'd be hard-pressed to find any place that stays open past 10 o'clock. We're a little sleepy there, you know, and we shut things down irrespective of a 2 o'clock state cutoff. and there are places that will stay open a little bit later you know but but generally we we kind of start to shut things down i don't expect that when given the opportunity to set a time that that in my particular area we're going to look at taking advantage of that to stretch it out to 4 a.m that just does not fit our community what does fit our community is uh is an idea that allows us to capture more sales tax because that is the very lifeblood of the town and is very necessary for the town, honestly. I won't get into the whole, you know, the way that Castle Rock operates, but the property tax is below one mil. So without the retail sales tax, we're dead in the water. This concept is something that I know is supported by individuals in my community, and therefore or I will be, I guess, vote today as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm in a unique position here because Broomfield, and of course the portions I represent, we don't have special districts. And I recognize that special districts are very limited. There's only 37 of them as we discuss. And I guess, you know, the question is, how do we proceed to support small businesses and local municipalities? these And so I want to emphasize that I hear a lot of the concerns of you know of the alcohol potential possibility but I do recognize that there is a middle ground and so I be a yes today So thank you Thank you.

Representative Basenecker.

Brooks. Yes.

Lindsey. Yes.

Pascal. Yes.

Sucla. Yes. Velasco. Respectfully, no. Weinberg.

Vice Chair Stewart. Yes. Madam Chair.

Thank you both.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

We are honored to be joined by my esteemed co-prime sponsor, Representative Soper, for part two of Woodrow and Soper Dabble in Districts. As you know, health service districts are a form of special districts that we have in Colorado. There are approximately 35 across the state, the vast majority of which support hospitals and other health services in their district. Just want to briefly share some information with the committee. housing insecurity is a major yet often hidden driver of increased pressure on health care systems leading to higher rates of emergency care preventable hospitalizations and poor health outcomes across all life stages individuals experiencing housing instability including homelessness overcrowding or high cost burdens face elevated rates of chronic illness mental health conditions and infectious diseases There is tremendous impact on healthcare systems There high emergency department or emergency room utilization People with unstable housing rely more heavily on emergency rooms for primary care with 33% of all emergency room visits in certain populations made by those experiencing chronic homelessness. Individuals without stable housing are 51% more likely to be readmitted to hospitals. And the chronic nature of housing instability, including overcrowding and forced moves, often results in higher overall health care costs, as patients cannot effectively manage chronic conditions like diabetes. There's also the problem of delayed care. Housing insecure individuals are more likely to delay doctor visits. Poor housing quality, including mold or lack of heat, contributes directly to asthma and respiratory diseases. And then there's the financial strain. Households spending too much on housing, what we consider housing burdened, or over a third of their monthly income have less money, for medications. And of course, I think it should be obvious to everyone on this committee that housing insecurity is linked to severe stress, anxiety, depression, and trauma. So it's well established that housing and health care intersect with housing insecurity serving as a major driver of health care costs. This bill represents a minor change that could have a major impact in those health service districts where it's used effectively. It would allow health service districts to develop and rehabilitate affordable housing units without having to go through hoops and red tape and go back to voters to approve the expenditures that it funds. What this bill does is it increases flexibility while reducing the burden on our health care systems. Now, given that the bill is entirely permissive, we imagine that the adoption will be rather slow and measured, But those health service districts that do avail themselves of the tools that this bill provides will find a powerful solution to ever increasing health care costs and strained budgets. I do want to let you all know that we do have one amendment that we will be bringing, working closely with affordable housing advocates through our stakeholding process. We've crafted language around what affordable housing means in the context of this bill. The amendment also requires the Health Service District to consult with local housing authorities to use funds in a manner that's consistent with any applicable local or regional housing needs assessments. I do thank Representative Soper for joining me in this effort. He serves on the board of a Health Service District and understands the strain that housing instability places on health care systems. I turn it over to him, and I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, sponsors.

Representative Soper.

Any other questions for our bill sponsors committee? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and call up our single panel of witnesses. So come on down. Amy Mitchell online, Kenzie Hastett in person, Kathy Alderman in person. All three of those folks are in an amend position, but I'm also going to bring up Jenny Arndt, who is our final panelist online, who is in a support position. Ms. Hasted, do you want to start us off? We're doing two minutes today.

Thank you so much, Ms. Alderman.

We'll go ahead and go online to Amy Mitchell. Go ahead and unmute. You've got two minutes. Thank you, Acting Chair and Committee. I appreciate your time. My name is Amy Mitchell, and I'm a Park County County Commissioner. Per Title 32, the formation of a health service district goes through a multi-step, 10-month or more process. The last step ends in a multi-part ballot question approving the district and tax funding mechanism, plus voting for the board members. The formation of the district for either a hospital or regional health care facility, as passed by the voters, approves the specific use of the tax. The election result establishes a voter intent The voter funding of either sales tax or property tax should only be used for the voted purpose according to the intent of Tabor The proposed change in the mission and purpose of an established health service district and the changed use of the revenue approved by voters is a violation of public trust. I believe diverting intended health care funds to affordable housing is a material modification to the district's and function. And contrary to the original ballot question, the Health Service District Board should not be able to circumvent voter desire and intent. I contend the board making the decision by majority may not reflect the voters and the people living in the district. The vote to add affordable housing to a Health Service District should go to the voters. Thank you for your time. I respectfully ask the committee to oppose HB 1300. 1300. I'm available to answer any questions as Park County has one health service district and we are actually going through the possibility of forming another district in our county. Thank you very much. Thank you very much and we will go and last but certainly not least former rep former mayor Jenny

Appreciate it. All right, committee, we've got the spectrum of positions up here on this one panel.

Oh, thank you very much for that question. You know, it is, I do really think of it as a modernization of service plans. I also kind of, this bill kind of checks all my personal theoretical boxes in terms of it's local control. It's completely permissive. It's cost-free. We're not saying you have to increase people's contributions to the health district. We're not saying anything except for the duly elected board of the health district can divert some funds to a predetermined of health that is, I think, in desperate need. So that was our thinking behind this bill. And I hope you'd also like to give the power to your local and mostly, as Representative Soper noted, rural health districts, this tool that they could use if they want to. If they don't want to, they certainly do not have to.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-001 to House Bill 1300.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, and thank you, Committee. What L-001 does is it addresses Rep. Richardson's comment to Representative Soper, ensuring that there is coordination with local housing authorities and the local government entity responsible. or at least some of the local government entities responsible vis-a-vis the housing needs assessments. It clarifies the definition of affordable housing and what can be done under the bill. And so we're talking about construction, rehabilitation of affordable housing units. It also makes clear that nothing sort of overrides the authority of a local government to apply and enforce applicable ordinances, deed restrictions, development agreements or other affordable housing policies and standards that they have. This was in consultation with the affordable housing stakeholders and community, and we very much appreciate their feedback, and we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I feel like I was just up here a minute ago. I would like to ask for your yes vote. It's very much a permissive bill. It in line with what the Health Services District chooses to do Nothing tells them they have to act on this and I can tell you because I am on the board of a health services district that we communicate with our fellow districts and we're all cash strapped. The reality is if any one of us is going to do this it's going to take a cash partner to be able to do this but one thing that at least a number of hospital districts have is land. And maybe not a lot of land, but there's usually acres that are owned by the hospital. And certainly questions come up about, you know, we really would like to have, you know, whether it's a place that we own, whether it's for our employees or for traveling nurses, or for the fact that we have long-term patients who need to be near the hospital. And it could be because they have a certain health condition that they're going to be receiving treatment every single week. It could be cancer treatments. It could be an enlarged heart. Those are just two of hundreds or thousands of examples. And also knowing what you heard from some of the folks who testified, that for a lot of our communities, there is a shortage of housing, certainly in our rural communities, because investment has not come to the rural communities like it has in other parts of the state, because it's hard to get a return on investment there as well. I see this as giving just one more possibility to what a board could consider as they're looking out across the landscape of the realm of possibilities. And it does stand on precedent, given the fact that we did something very similar for school districts as well, which is quite similar to hospital districts. The one thing that I would point out that makes hospital districts or health services districts different than, for example, school districts, school districts' revenue is almost entirely from the taxpayers. That makes them pretty unique, along with most of our special districts. A health services district, the amount of their budget that comes from the taxpayers is going to be relatively small. And it's going to come from a property tax and or a sales tax. And when you look at the fact that they'll have operational revenue that will come from the payers, the billing for services, and then the non-operational revenue is going to be your tax revenue, that will come from the property tax or the sales tax. It's frustrating to hear some say that because maybe 5% of your total revenue, both operational and non-operational revenue, comes from the taxpayers, that because you're organized as a special district, that now you're restricted on what you can do in terms of anything related to housing is frustrating. because if you see that as being within the best interest of the hospital and the health services district, the board of that hospital should be able to make that decision. And that you shouldn't say that because 5% of your total revenue comes from the taxpayer, therefore you're completely restricted on what you do going forward. To me, it drives me nuts. And that why health services districts are different than other special districts and school districts because so much of our revenue also comes from the payers the commercial payers or the public payers like Medicare and Medicaid And for the reasons of having the ability of choice, I would encourage a yes vote.

A proper motion would send House Bill 1300 to the Committee of the Whole. Representative Paschal?

Second. That's a proper motion and a second. Are there any closing comments? Committee. All right.

Jackson.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I'm going to know for today.

Yes.

Congratulations. You are on your way to the Committee of the Whole. Our last bill tonight is House Bill 1313,

Okay, we are on to our final bill of the evening, HB 261313. Sponsors, who would like to begin? Representative Bazenecker.

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you so much to Speaker Pro Tem Basinicker for inviting me onto this really incredible piece of legislation. We all know that every Coloradan deserves a fair shot at a stable life, and that really does begin with access to affordable and attainable housing. And Prop 123, I think many of us can agree, has done just that. Since voters approved Prop 123 in 2022, it has become a cornerstone of Colorado's response to the housing crisis, empowering local governments across Colorado, with the resources and structures needed to address housing shortages in ways that reflect their unique community needs. However, since then, housing materials and financing have become much, much more expensive, causing many local governments to fall behind on their three-year targets. To ensure the ongoing success of Prop 123, every local government must have a clear, realistic, and achievable path to remain qualified for this essential funding, and this is exactly what 1313 intends to do. The stakeholding process was, I would say, thorough is the understatement of the year. It was one of the most incredible stakeholding processes I've gotten to experience since I've been a legislator. And I'm really encouraged by how all of the thoughtful feedback that we gathered really creates the adjustment to the new baseline calculations to better reflect this 2026 housing economy and also just the realities, frankly, of all of our communities who are now in the middle of their first three-year cycle and seeing what is working and what is not and how to continue to remain eligible, hopefully, to continue to receive dollars in the future. This bill is a really vital step towards sustaining the long-term success of Prop 123 and meeting local governments where they are. And I will say that this bill is what good governance looks like. It's listening. It's reevaluating. It's updating when something isn't working the way we wanted to for the folks who we intended to serve. So I'm incredibly proud of the work that we've done to update a lot of the formulas for qualification for these really critical dollars and would ask for your eye vote.

Thank you, Chair. So you had talked about how communities are just kind of in the middle of their first three-year cycle. So granted, it was something that was passed in 2022, but still very much nascent because we haven't had the opportunity to really even go through a full three-year cycle yet. So why adjust so quickly? Or then also why not just look at revising the three-year piece of it instead of shifting away from what I consider to be a pretty good program that allows for that local control and transparency. And this shifts more to a state-centric formula.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Burks, for the question. I think it's important to note that the new formula that we're proposing actually came to us from a local government because they felt like the formula that we were proposing in one iteration of the stakeholding was not actually going to work as we intended. And so what we're looking at is average number of building permits times the number of years that a local government is committing to that times the job growth factor. and the job growth factor in particular was a suggestion by one of our county commissioners because she felt like ultimately when looking at the overlay statewide that we needed to create something with more local flexibility and local nuance. And so we were happy to move in that direction because ultimately we felt like it does exactly what you're driving at. And I think what the program is intended to do, which is to work at the local level, providing state support in order to make those opportunities possible. I think I would also add that, you know, the goal was never that 90% of local governments make it across the finish line in the first three-year cycle, but clearly the goal was never that 90% are disenrolled. And when we know from a one-year timeout even, it is not just a one-year timeout, because when you look at development cycles in terms of what it takes to build housing in our communities, a one-year timeout for development and the absence of these funds can ultimately mean a multi-year timeout and a disinvestment from local jurisdictions where we should be having these opportunities come forward because we recognize that these local governments are working very hard to solve these issues. They are largely in compliance with Proposition 123. They might actually meet the new baseline formula, but they just can't meet their existing one. And so we're creating a waiver process to say that if you've adopted a FastTracks program, if you're going to complete 65% of the units that you've been obligated to commit under the existing formula, or if you would meet your new housing target under the new formula, those are all ways that you can stay enrolled in the program because what we recognize is that local nuance really matters, but we need to have flexibility in terms of formula to get you there. And so that's what we're really driving at with the formula. Representative Brooks.

Rep. Basnicker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the formula is important, and I think it ultimately helps you meet your goals faster and at a more achievable rate. But I think what also matters inside of this bill are those partnerships that you mentioned and the way that the bill now contemplates incentive structures for those partnerships to exist. For example, under the bill, as we either will amend it or as we will, as it is at present. Partnerships now between our county governments and say a municipality. Previously, you had a situation where it was sort of a free-for-all in terms of how those units would get counted. And that could create a lot of tensions between those jurisdictions because you would ultimately disincentivize partnerships if a county wasn't going to get credit or if the local government or the municipality wasn't going to get credit according to what they thought it should be. The bill, as we've introduced it, actually says that now the unit count is proportional to the investment in those projects. So everybody gets their fair share based on what they've invested in those projects. As well, we've included different multipliers when those partnerships from multiple jurisdictions happen. So that we are actually saying those partnerships are really what makes these projects tick. We know that Larimer County and the city of Fort Collins coming together over a project is far more successful than the county going it alone. So we have unit multipliers inside of the bill to recognize for those situations because we want to have those partnerships be the driver for more affordability in our communities, and we know that local governments are already doing that well.

Representative Richardson. During the discussions that led to this, was there any discussion? I mean, we can have regional partnerships, and we've developed those for housing, and we have a great municipality just outside my county where there is job growth, but there's not that much within my county where homes are being built. So these factors that allow a credit for job growth for counties or areas that are truly bedroom communities or more expensive places to live? How does that work in, and what's that part of the discussion? Representative Stewart.

It does, and maybe this isn't a question. I'm just trying to wrap my head around. We have quite a bit of housing stock comparatively, not for a small county, but very few jobs. So job growth rate can spike dramatically if we get a medium-sized business role in. So that kind of distorts things in much less than a three-year period. Representative Baisnicker.

Committee, any other questions for the sponsors? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to the witness phase. For the first panel, I'd like to call up Ashley Wiesner, Tamara Pogue, Jesse Zamora, Zach Martinez. And can I also pull up Karen Kallenberg, Melissa Cook, and Katie first? Okay, we'll get started here on the left. Please state your name, who you represent, and you have three minutes. Thank you. Two minutes, sorry. Okay, quick. And committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 1313. My name is Zach Martinez. I'm the Director of Policy and Advocacy at Gary Advocacy, a Colorado-based policy organization committed to making Colorado the best place to raise a family. Our organization has been working in affordable housing and homeownership in Colorado for decades, but most notably, we were the lead proponents for Proposition 123 back in 2022. Since its passing, Prop 123 has financed over 11,000 affordable homes, served nearly 90,000 Colorado households and supported 120 local governments with planning and capacity grants. Similarly, a recent economic analysis by ECHO Northwest found that Prop 123 resulted in nearly 14,000 jobs created, $6 billion invested in the state's economy, and for every $1 invested in Prop 123, the state received an additional 25 cents in state revenue. Prop 123 is one of the largest housing financing programs in the state and produces thousands of units that do not have have to rely on federal funding. And at the same time, it needs a little bit of an adjustment. The original Prop 123 language used a crude structure using dated data that wasn't designed for this purpose. 1313 will be more dynamic. It relies on data local governments collect themselves, the number of new units permitted, and it focuses affordable housing communities that have job growth and can build housing. This leads to a structure where we are holding local governments to building only when the economics makes sense to build and when the housing will be needed in the future. This new process will also create additional incentives for homeownership, permanent supportive housing, and deeply affordable housing units, all of which are notoriously hard to build. Additionally, this process also recognizes local governments that go above and beyond by incentivizing local governments when they donate land for affordable housing, work in partnership with other jurisdictions, and when they exceed their target in prior cycles. accountability is hard housing markets are dynamic and complex in this process takes into consideration these realities and is a true representation of a whole lot of stakeholdering like was said before. I'm proud of this new structure in House Bill 1313 and for those reasons I urge a yes vote. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Martinez. Moving down the line would you please state your name who you represent and you have two minutes.

Thank you, Ms. Wiesner. On the end, welcome. Please state your name, who you represent. You have two minutes.

please vote yes on the bill thank you thank you mr zamora uh we will move to some online testimony um miss pogue please state your name who you represent you have two minutes thank you madam

Thank you. Ms. Kallenberg, if you would state your name, who you represent, you have two minutes.

across our state. Thank you. And on to Ms. First. Please state your name, who you represent. You have

Thank you, committee. Is there any questions for our panel? Rep. Wynn.

And Ms. Pogue, I see your hand up as well if you'd like to respond.

And Ms. Kallenberg, if you'd like to respond.

Representative Brooks, did you have a question?

Ms. Kallenberg. Yes. Thank you for the question and to be able to drill down on this. I'm going to share a little bit and I'm going to also think that Ashley from DOLA and Zach from Gary, I think, really have some more examples. Yes, for affordable homeownership, this is the first time we've had such a significant pool of funding to access for us. And that has helped us to increase our production. But again, when we look at the entire housing continuum, we have to remember that we're also looking at units for homelessness and for rental as well. And the way the current formula, I think we're all building just as much as we possibly can, and we're working really, really hard to get as many units built as possible. But the way the formula was originally structured, it doesn't set communities up for success to be able to meet those goals. Like the commissioner mentioned, like one of the examples that was given was Pueblo because of some naturally occurring affordable housing. It kind of skews the numbers. So what we don't want to have happen is we got this wonderful approved funding source. And that because of a way a formula was structured that it going to prevent us from continuing to utilize the money So I would respectfully ask too I think Ashley and Zach could give you some more of those real community examples Mr Martinez Thank you Chair and Representative

Ms. Wiesner. Yes, and thank you so much for that question, Madam Chair and Commissioner. I do want to address, I think, kind of what you're trying to understand is really what the metric is that we're having an issue with here. And Pueblo, as mentioned, is a great example. We're also seeing this in a lot of our eastern communities. The current calculation, what's happening is that those numbers are just too high. They're unrealistic for their community, for their pace of development. And so even though they are doing meaningful work and working towards those goals, they physically just cannot meet what was established in the original three-year cycle. And so that's what we're proposing to do is to change the metric to make this metric be something that's more realistic and reflective of their pace of development and job growth.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair and Rep Brooks. Agreed Like I think that when we passed Proposition 123 we wanted to make sure that there was accountability for local governments to be stepping up and making sure they building the amount of housing that is necessary in their communities At that point, we had to come up with a structure, and that structure we created was based off of, like, back-of-the-envelope math. And the concept here is not to let local governments off the hook, but to create a system that actually is grounded in reality that will change with economic conditions and the reality of Colorado. So that's what we're trying to get to. And I will say that if every local government stays qualified for Proposition 123 funding after this cycle, it means that we did not succeed. But if every jurisdiction got booted from Prop 123, that also means we have not succeeded. So our goal here, and thanks to everyone who has helped us make this a lot better than the original version we had, is to make sure that we have a system that maintains accountability, but maintains accountability that is grounded in reality and is a reasonable expectation across jurisdictions that, you know, it generally is hard to create a formula that is applied fairly to every jurisdiction and is also grounded in reality and will result in many jurisdictions succeeding and some not. And I think we've found a really good spot, but hopefully we want to be back here next year because it will be successful. But I will be a loud advocate saying we need to adjust it if every single jurisdiction is successful at staying qualified for Prop 123.

I will say we have someone from Pueblo coming up on the next panel, but let's try to answer it here to Ms. Wiesner.

Mr Martinez Super Thank you Chair and Representative Richardson I will be super quick but just want to say also that it just based off the way that the census data works which we picked the census because it was the most comprehensive data But a great example of why NOAA is not something that we should be including in this new formula is because if you've owned your home for 29 years, basically regardless of economic circumstances or what world we live in, you will show up in the census data as owning a naturally occurring affordable housing because you bought your home 30 years ago and you're paying a mortgage that was originated 30 years ago. So there's just like a lot of noise in the data that results in there being affordable housing that's not truly affordable housing if you ever asked your community if it was affordable. Thank you. Okay. Representative Brooks, one more question.

Can you just speak to that? Because, yeah. Ms. Wiesner. Thank you for the question, representative. Yes, this bill does not have a fiscal note. It does change DOLA's process of how we are tracking, but it will not take additional staff to be able to do that. And so we actually think this will be a very parallel system of how we are tracking and doing things internally.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Kinsey Hasted, and I'm the Director of State and Local Policy for Enterprise Community Partners. I'm here to explain Enterprise's amend position on House Bill 1313, with thanks to Representatives Basinecker and Stewart, the DOLA and Governor teams, and the proponents for their commitment to making Proposition 123 work for those who need it and for their continued engagement of many diverse stakeholders. Enterprise appreciates that Proposition 123 provides funding for a range of affordable housing needs, housing stability, and homelessness interventions, and particularly that beneficiaries of financing for rental housing explicitly include Coloradans living at 60% of their area's median income and below. Even as recent housing supply increases in some areas of the state have provided more choice and lower cost for renters at 70 or 80% AMI and higher, an important win to be sure. Lower income Coloradans do continue to struggle to find and sustainably afford a home. This includes working people like many of our teachers, health care providers, construction laborers, child care and social workers, janitors and service industry employees. It also includes people People living on fixed incomes like older adults and people living with disabilities and those exiting chronic homelessness. It simply takes more public subsidy to make rental homes affordable enough for all these Coloradans. Enterprise therefore supports House Bill 1313's incentivization of income-restricted units affordable to extremely low-income residents. We're additionally grateful for sponsors' willingness to make additional changes via amendments to further help realize Proposition 123's promise for lower-income Coloradans. Should you all accept the amendments we expect you'll receive today, Enterprise anticipates moving to support House Bill 1313. I appreciate your consideration and would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is still Kathy Alderman, and I still am the Chief Communications and Public Policy Officer, still employed by the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless is a housing and health care provider, and we do come in an amend position today, but like the previous bill, we anticipate moving to support after the amendments are presented and hopefully accepted by this committee. We appreciate Representatives Basin-Ecker and Stewart at the Governor's Office and the Department of Local Affairs for working with us and other partners in the affordable housing advocacy community to improve the bill. In 2022, CCH was a strong supporter of Proposition 123, and we have all anxiously awaited the end of the first three-year cycle to see how the funding and program requirements are working to address the affordable housing and homelessness challenges the state is facing. We believe making changes to the baseline and housing growth requirements will help more communities access this critical funding and will create more meaningful data and reporting on what the funds are able to create. We are also encouraged by the incentive program that encourages local communities to address some of the harder to build housing options specifically incentivizing supportive housing programs for the lowest income households. Data continually tells us that lower income households and those experiencing homelessness continue to struggle to find affordable available and accessible housing and that we must continue to find tools that can help spur housing development for these households that will not be served by the market. Incentivizing more targeted efforts by local governments to prevent and resolve homelessness could go a long way in desperately needed homelessness prevention and resolution efforts for the growing population. To date, just 17% of the housing built with Prop 123 funds have been directed to the lowest income households. And we are hopeful that the unit boost incentive will help more of these critical dollars go to supporting those households with the greatest barriers to affordable housing access. Again, I want to thank the sponsors for bringing the bill, all of the partners who have weighed in. And we urge your support today, and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam. Chair members of the committee my name is Brian Ross Bert I am here on behalf of Housing Colorado a membership Association of affordable housing Organizations from around the state who are building preserving and operating housing for those on low and moderate incomes I'm here to testify in an amended position on House bill 26 13 13 We have worked with sponsors proponents and other affordable housing advocates on amendments You will consider later today and with the adoption of those amendments we will move to support the bill housing colorado was a supporter of proposition 123 when it came before voters in 2022 we have worked since then to help make it more equitable and better able to serve the intent that voters had in mind when they passed the initiative this year marks an important milestone in prop 123 existence and house bill 261313 will improve upon the law in several in several important ways First it does allow for that process to remain eligible under the current formula if you made substantial progress in that regard or if you have achieved the standard under the new formula as well. So we hope that many jurisdictions, MANY COMMUNITIES WILL REMAIN ELIGIBLE FOR PROPOSITION 123 FUNDS BECAUSE OF THIS BILL. SECOND, THE MOVE AWAY FROM THE 3% PER YEAR GROWTH TARGET TO ONE THAT IS TIED TO BUILDING PERMITS AND JOB GROWTH SEEMS TO US TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT THE NEEDS OF COMMUNITIES AROUND THE STATE. WE BELIEVE THIS FORMULA WILL LEAD TO MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING. AND FINALLY, IN ADDITION TO THE NEW FORMULA, WE ARE HEARTENED by the incentives included in the bill for some of the hardest to build housing types. While we would have preferred to see an incentive for preservation included in the amendments, we are nonetheless eager to see how and if these incentives will help build these housing types, while at the same time helping jurisdictions remain eligible for funds. We are supportive of the underlying bill and the amendments you will consider today, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Melissa Cook, and I'm the Director of Housing and Citizen Services for the City of Pueblo. On Monday, March 23rd, the Pueblo City Council signed a resolution in support of House Bill 26-13-13, and I am here today to express this strong support. Under the current Proposition 123 framework, the City of Pueblo faces an unrealistic and unattainable requirement. We must produce 1,206 new deed restricted or Proposition 123 funded affordable housing units over a three-year cycle. This is more residential units than the City of Pueblo has ever created in any three-year cycle in decades, let alone of documented affordable housing. This unrealistic and unattainable requirement is a result of Pueblo's high concentration of low-income households and naturally occurring affordable housing within the community. As a result, without this bill, the City of Pueblo, local nonprofits, and every developer we partner with would become ineligible for Proposition 123 funding in 2027. House Bill 26-13-13 fixes this problem by replacing the rigid 3% mandate with a fair data-driven, targeted approach, which is based on actual permitting history and local job growth. For Pueblo, this new target drops dramatically to approximately 120 deed-restricted units over three years. this is a realistic goal the city of pueblo has been making great progress towards increasing our affordable housing stock and is committed to doing so without this legislation and without access to proposition one two three funding in 2027 the city will see significant barriers and less affordable housing development as a result i respectfully urge you to give house bill 26 1313 a favorable recommendation thank you so much for your time thank you miss mckenna please state your name who

My name is Katie McKenna, and I'm here on behalf of Archway Communities. We're currently in an amend position with the intention of moving to full support following the adoption of today's amendments. First, I'd like to thank the sponsors for their leadership and for the thoughtful stakeholder process and open communication. Proposition 123 has quickly become one of the most important affordable housing resources in Colorado Since its passage it has brought more than 11 affordable homes into various stages of development and unlocked critical funding At Archway we utilized all three programs supporting rental development. That's the land banking grants, concessionary debt, and equity. And they're helping us advance projects that simply wouldn't be possible otherwise. Colorado is truly leading the way nationally with this model. We're regularly asked by peers how we're doing it and Proposition 123 is a big part of the answer. With that said, a resource this important requires ongoing care, evaluation, and adjustment and that's what this bill is doing. Some of the things that are important to me is that by shifting to a more realistic and flexible target setting approach, the bill can help ensure that local governments can meet achievable goals and continue to access these critical funds over time. It also is thoughtfully incentivizing some of the most challenging types of development including deeply affordable housing. I also want to briefly acknowledge that Archway requested the inclusion of preservation of existing affordable housing given that Colorado currently stands to lose one deed restricted affordable home for every two we build due to expiring restrictions and limited resources. While that request wasn't incorporated we appreciate the clear communication and understand the rationale. We look forward to continuing to work with you all and others on preserving affordable homes in Colorado. Thank you again for the leadership and your time on this bill and opportunity to testify. We look forward to moving to a support position. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L2 to House Bill 1313. Seconded. Second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Amendment L002 is our property tax revenue loss documentation timeline. It clarifies that preservation of units by extending existing use covenants or deed restrictions for at least 15 years shall count towards local government goals, as you just heard. It fixes an error in the introduced version that had an and on page 10, line 17, instead of an or in the local government waiver process. It clarifies that for a homeownership unit to qualify, it must be affordable as defined by Prop 123 homeownership programs. It increases the AMI from 30% to 40% to help provide more housing options for seniors, people living with disabilities, and to explicitly name supportive housing within this provision. and it creates additional flexibility for when local governments must submit documentation regarding lost property tax revenue. We would ask for an aye vote.

Second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is our final amendment. It is an incentive addition. So it adds back the local government partnership incentive multiplier, which I think we talked about earlier today. where projects that have a subsidy from multiple jurisdictions receive 1.1 time the units developed towards the jurisdictions' unit count targets. And we would ask for an aye vote.

partners across counties uh cities uh all of our community partners folks at dola this really was a team effort to make sure that we are following through with our commitment to get this right just to be clear again this is what good responsive representative governance looks like there was a problem with the way the initial formula was set up. It set goals that certain jurisdictions were never, never going to be able to hit, like goals that exceeded the amount of building permits that they actually issued year over year, just completely unrealistic, unachievable. This is not about giving every jurisdiction a pass or a participation trophy for trying. They are doing really, really good work, and we want to make sure that the formula is reflective of the actual growth rates in each local jurisdiction with opportunities for them to apply for waivers for unexpected circumstances, spikes in the data, and really be much more responsive to what the realities are on the ground in our different communities. It was a pleasure, and I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. I would echo Rep Stewart's thanks to our stakeholders who showed up today and really offered their support and, quite frankly, their ability to shape the policy into something that will continue to be workable, not only for our local governments, but I think true to the voter intent, really moved the needle on affordable housing in our communities. You know, we set out with three really North stars inside of this. One being that the program continued to be administrable not only for DOLA, but that it be clear and expectation and reality for our local governments. These amendments and this new baseline calculation do exactly that. The second perhaps is the most important is that it remains true to the intent of the voters. When the voters passed this, they made a clear statement in terms of both the need of affordable housing in our communities, but also the expectation that local governments who opt out make demonstrable changes that will further facilitate the creation of affordable housing in those communities. And mind you, this is an optional program. Two things can be true at the same time. A local government can currently be receiving funding from Proposition 123 that you see working on the ground. and that local government can find themselves in a very hard spot later this year when they become disenrolled from a program due to factors that have nothing to do with their commitment to that goal. It simply is the result of a baseline calculation that needs to be adjusted. And so to that end, we feel it necessary continue those successes, but also to hold local governments accountable where there haven't been those meaningful moves, like adopting a fast-track process, for example. Those things need to be in place, and we understand that those are key to the program. I think the third thing that we've identified really early on as being a priority is that it continued to provide opportunities for local governments who want to continue working on this issue and also resources for them to do just that. What you hear through DOLA's process, and I think what you hear through a flexible waiver process, both for the current three-year cycle and for the next three-year cycle, is that we want local governments to succeed so long as they are living up to voter intent, and that is exactly what this new baseline calculation and bill will do, so we would ask for your support.

I'd love that for us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1313 as amended with a favorable recommendation to the committee of the whole. Second.

Thank you for bringing this bill. Something with housing and 13 I think I have to vote yes Any other comments Representative Brooks

Any other comments? Seeing none, Mr. Gravey,

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No for today.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Congratulations. That passes 10 to 3. And with that, the Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee is adjourned. Everybody get home safe.