April 21, 2026 · Finance · 6,867 words · 12 speakers · 141 segments
Good afternoon. Welcome to Senate Finance. Ms. Budabish, will you please take the roll?
Senators, Benavides. Wright. Here. Rizal. Excuse. Colker. Here. Roberts. Here. Simpson. Excuse. Snyder. Snyder, say here. Marchman. Excuse. Madam Chair.
Okay, great. We are here to hear one bill today, SB 26, 163. Oh, and let the record reflect, Senator Marchman is here, Vice Chair Marchman, and Senator Roberts, please tell us about your bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Finance Committee for hearing this bill today. I'm here to present Senate Bill 163. As many of you know, I represent the limited gaming communities in Gilpin County, which are Blackhawk and Central City. So I have worked a little bit on various policies related to ensuring that our gaming framework is effective, well-regulated, and responsive to a changing industry. This version of this bill before you today is going to be hopefully more focused than the introduced version. I just want to say from the start that I have drafted and given to Ms. Rudabush amendments to remove all portions of the introduced version of the bill that have to deal with the Horse Racing Commission. So it's our intent to remove that all from the bill today and push that conversation to a forum in which there's longer time to talk about it and go through all of the pros and cons of that conversation. So what will be, if the amendments are adopted in front of you, is more focused and much smaller than the introduced version. It is going to specifically the bill will allow for more efficient delegation of licensing duties to the division of gaming and strengthens enforcement tools to address unlicensed gaming and sports betting in Colorado. It also will give the division flexibility to approve minor updates to existing games which will help the industry stay competitive while maintaining commission oversight for any new games. And importantly, it expands Colorado's self-exclusion program to include sports betting, which will strengthen our responsible gaming efforts here in the state of Colorado. So with those amendments and narrowed significantly at this core, this bill is going to be about modernization, efficiency, and ensuring that Colorado continues to have a strong, well-balanced regulatory framework when it comes to gaming activities in our state. And so with that, I look forward to this conversation and turn it back over to you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. And please let the record reflect that Senator Frizzell is here. And do we have questions for our bill sponsor? Okay. Seeing none, I guess we will move to our amendment phase. Thank you so much. I know we have, I have a list here. I assume we do like the amend slash against people at first,
and then we will go to anybody who is here.
That sounds great. Okay. Yes. So I'm going to call up Mark Hillman, Matt Herman, Jill Cook, and Kim Oliver. Perfect. Thank you. We have one witness remote and the other three in person. So if you don't mind, we're going to go from left to right and then up on to the online witness. There is a little gray button on the table in front of you. It's not on the microphone, so make sure the light is green before you start talking or we won't be able to hear you very well. So please introduce yourself and begin. You have three minutes. The little light goes on. It's a green light for the first two and a half minutes. When you have 30 seconds lights left, the yellow light goes on. and when the red light goes on, we'd like you to stop talking if possible. So thank you.
Thank you, Senator Roberts and the Department of Revenue, for hearing us today. My name is Kim Oliver, and I am the president of the Colorado Horsemen's Association, and I represent every trainer and owner that races horses in Colorado. My background is my great-grandparents raced horses. My grandparents met at the track. They raced in Centennial in Littleton when it was the track. So I have a rich history in Colorado with horse racing. And in the last five years with the Racing Commission, I just want to talk about how important they were to us, and I've worked with them extensively to try and keep our race meets going. We've had a lot of challenges since COVID and various things. The industry is a very complex industry, and the commissioners have been invaluable to us to keep things going and support our industry. I just wanted to make sure that you understood the importance of having a racing commission that stands separate from the gaming because we're dealing with the horses, and my passion is the horses, and doing what's right for the horses and making sure we're doing what's right in the industry.
Thank you very much. Sir, please proceed.
Good afternoon. My name is Matt Herman. I'm a third-generation breeder of racehorses in Colorado with over 40 years breeding. We're just outside of Platteville, Colorado in Weld County. First off, I want to say thank you to everybody involved in this bill. The job that you guys are tasked with is extremely difficult, extremely stressful, and extremely time-consuming, so I want to say thank you for listening to our phone calls, listening to our emails, reading our emails. We're here representing our members, not only in an industry standpoint, but these are these people's dreams and passions and who they are, and most importantly, it's about the horse. We are here for the horse. We have a commission now that has really done a great job of helping us through some trying times and really, really focusing on what's better for the horse and the horses involved in racing. We do look forward to having future conversations with the Department of Revenue. We want to come up with something that's, you know, it's workable for all angles. It's workable for their department, for all the divisions. But most importantly, we have to focus on the horse. What is best for the animal that we love and that we're here trying to protect? So thank you very much for everything that you do. Thank you for listening to us. We appreciate you. Thank you.
And, Ms. Oliver, I presume, I don't have you signed up on the sheet, so after you testify, if you wouldn't mind, there's a little QR code in back. It'll allow you to sign up. But please, go ahead.
I'm actually Dr. Jill Cook.
Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Cook. Sorry. Apologies. Not a problem.
I believe I'm signed up. I've lived up in Fort Collins.
Ms. Oliver, if you don't mind, at the end, you'll need to sign up. Apologies. But proceed, Dr. Cook.
I apologize. I have lived up in the Fort Collins area for 50-plus years, graduate of Colorado State University Veterinary Hospital, and have made my living in the racehorse industry, breeding, raising, racing, and caring for racehorses. And that is my passion. And I want to thank Senator Roberts and the committee for making an adjustment, listening to the horsemen. I think it's a very important adjustment. The racing commission that we currently have, the five members, we have a trainer, we have a couple veterinarians. They have worked very, very hard to help racing and to work with the horsemen, work with the track, and I think that they have done a phenomenal job, and I think that they would have been very reluctant to try and make decisions for the gaming industry where their passions are not and their understanding of the industry lies with the horses and the horse industry. So we really care about the horse. We've done a very good job at Arapahoe Park in that we had no catastrophic injuries. As you know, injuries in any athletic field, whether it's human or equine, do occur, and we feel very blessed that the track did a very good job, the veterinarians did a very good job, and we did not have any horses die at the track. We do, I am representing the Rocky Mountain Quarter Horse Association Racing Board, and we are very proactive about improving the quality of racing in Colorado, and so we look forward to further discussions to try and move racing forward in the state, discussions with the Department of Revenue or any of you senators. We would love to have some discussions on your ideas, your thoughts, anything we could do to make racing in Colorado better. But again, we really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you for your time and effort. Thank you.
And then we'll go online, so please hold for questions, all of you. And Mr. Hillman, if you'd unmute yourself, and you have three minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Mark Hillman. My family operates a farm near Burlington where we raise crops and we also raise horses, including some thoroughbred breed mares and racing prospects who we consider the four-legged members of our family. I am currently the treasurer of the Colorado Thoroughbred Breeders Association. I'm here to ask you to amend Senate Bill 163, and I want to thank Senator Roberts and the members of this committee for being willing to engage with the horse racing community on these issues. As introduced, Senate Bill 163 would have closed the Division of Racing Events, which regulates horse racing, and more importantly, it would eliminate the five-member Colorado Racing Commission and give those responsibilities to the Gaming Commission. I strongly oppose eliminating the Racing Commission as a separate entity, and along with others in the horse racing community, I presented these concerns to Senator Roberts, and we appreciate his amendment to remove those changes. I will therefore limit my remarks to briefly explain why a separate racing commission is necessary. The racing commission is currently composed of five members. That's currently two active or retired veterinarians, one racehorse trainer with over 40 years of experience, and two members of the public. These members take time to attend conferences and to become educated on racing issues, both regarding the gambling side of the industry and the horse welfare side of the industry. On the other hand horse welfare is something completely foreign to the gaming commission We need to preserve a racing commission that not only cares about the gambling side of the business but is equally, if not more greatly concerned about the welfare of the horses and the well-being of the people who raise, train, ride, and care for these horses all year long and around the clock. I believe the current commission obviously wants racing in Colorado to succeed and want it to be conducted as safely as possible. I appreciate your consideration and would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much.
Please let the record reflect that Minority Leader Simpson is here. And members, do we have questions for this panel? Vice Chair Marchman.
Thank you. And I don't know who can really answer this, but my understanding is that there was a 2015 sunset that said these should go together. And then in 22, there was a sunset that said, no, they should be separate. And in 23, we ran a bill to make sure the racing commission stayed separate. But something drove this decision to try to consolidate. And so I'm just wondering if anybody could share why there was this push to consolidate. I don't know much about the board. There are five people. Is it a functional board? Meets regularly? Takes minutes? Just kind of curious because it seems like it was just really obvious to our department that we should consolidate, but I'm not sure that I'm hearing that from you guys. So I don't know if anyone can help me understand why. And to be clear, later we do have two folks from the Department of Revenue signed up to ask questions of as well. But would anybody like to answer that question? I'm sorry.
Ms. Oliver.
Thank you so much. So as of an example would be last year. So the racing commission, the track, had had some issues with their wiring the year before. We ended up running without electricity that year. That year we held multiple, multiple commission meetings trying to postpone the meet, make sure the safety things were in place, all of the pieces, so that we could run an actual meet without electricity. That was in 24. So then last year in 25, the wiring was being completed, but we were still, like, up against the dates. So because we have 30 days of racing and we have to have that approved 60 days in advance, for the division to do their hiring. So we kept looking at a June start of the meet, and it kept getting pushed back. We didn't start until September 11th last year, and that was because of our commission that we actually had a race meet. I think we had probably eight meetings from those times. I can't remember exactly how many meetings, but it was every week. I think we were meeting right up there until the end. We had to get special. They had to approve a special waiver for the 60 days of the Department of Revenue, the Division of Racing events. They usually have to have 60 days to hire their staff. They graciously allowed us to only have, I think they had five days to get all of their people in place so that we'd start the meet and be able to end the meet before the weather changed. And the commission was hand-in-hand trying to make that happen for us. And same, the previous in 24, same thing. And in COVID in 21, same thing. There was several meetings because we were having to push back the meet. And trying to just get all the pieces together, the Toporana race meet, is a tremendous amount of work, not only for each horseman, and if they have 20 horses that they're trying to take care of, move, set up their barns, all of the things, and then the division, all of their investigators and the veterinary staff, and for all the testing. I mean, it's a tremendous undertaking. And the commission was hand-in-hand with the racetrack and their employees with the Division of Racing and the horsemen to make it happen. Thank you.
Thank you. Additional questions for this panel. Senator Frizzell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm kind of going to piggyback onto Vice Chair Marchman's question. Did you have and did the Department of Revenue engage in stakeholding with you on this legislation? Because it feels kind of, to my good colleague's point, it seems like this conversation has been back and forth over 10 years now. And so my question is, were you engaged or what did that engagement look like?
We would like to take that. Ms. Oliver.
Yeah, we were not engaged in the first I heard about it was last week that the racing commission was going to be dissolved and put under gaming. And I was really concerned because it's, I'm not sure where it came before I heard about it, but it really concerned me because of working with the racing commission, so intimately, that's not the right word, but closely, and I felt like they really understood all of our issues. They're very engaged. They go to seminars. We have a racing symposium in Tucson every year in December. Members, two of our commissioners, no, one of our commissioners was there this year, and a different one last year. I think a commissioner always attends that. It's like a four-day intense conference learning about the racing industry. They're very engaged in what we're doing. So I was surprised that they wanted to do away with them because they've already invested so much in their education.
Thanks. Senator Bright.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Question is for Mr. Herman. Are you aware of the amendments that have been offered on this bill?
Mr. Herman.
Am I aware of the amendments that have been offered on this bill as it sits now or the way that it was originally?
I think he's referring to the amendments that we have before us, which would remove the consolidation of the Gaming Commission.
I am aware of that now, yes.
Senator Bright?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Does that change your position on this bill with the amendments that have been offered?
The amendment that's been offered of removing racing and the consolidation of the two divisions, the two commissions into their own separate commissions does satisfy.
Okay, Senator Bright.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And same line of question to Mr. Hellman.
Mr. Hellman.
Yes, L-004, I believe it is, is Senator Roberts' amendment to take out the changes to the Racing Commission and the Division of Racing. And yes, with that amendment, we would not have a position on the bill.
Great, thank you. Senator Marchman or Vice Chair Marchman, did I see your hand go up again?
No, it's okay.
Okay. Great. Thank you so much. We really appreciate you coming all the way down here to testify on, I think, relatively short notice. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. We have three more witnesses, I believe. No. Mr. Howie Shavers, Dr. Jerry Black, and Jody Martin-Witt. and then we'll bring up the Department of Revenue after that. They aren't here? Okay. Okay, thank you. So with that, let's bring up Christopher Schroeder and Jimmy Reed from the Colorado Department of Revenue. Okay, Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Reed, we have you here, so please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Christopher Schroeder, and I serve as the Director of the Colorado Division of Gaming and the Colorado Division of Racing Events. and I'm here today in support of Senate Bill 26-163 with the amendments. This bill proposes several targeted improvements with the objective to enhance operational efficiency and streamline regulatory pathways for gaming vendors across Colorado, ensuring our state remains a leader in fair and effective gaming oversight. Specifically, the bill streamlines administrative approvals to foster a more agile business environment by delegating authority for routine regulatory approvals, such as minor vendor licenses and approved table game modifications, directly to the gaming director. By removing these items from the Commission's monthly agenda, we eliminate unnecessary wait times for the industry partners and allow the Commission to focus on high-level policy matters. The bill clarifies the Division's investigative and enforcement authorities to better safeguard Colorado's competitive landscape. A critical component includes updating the definition of illegal gambling to more effectively combat the proliferation of gray market gaming devices and associated criminal activity. Additionally, responsible gaming remains a top priority. This legislation updates Section 44-30-1703 CRS to include explicit references to sports betting and Internet sports betting operations. This ensures that individuals who choose to self-exclude can effectively prohibit themselves from participating across gaming platforms and licensees statewide. I'll also note that an amendment will be introduced to clarify requirements for FBI fingerprint background checks. While SB 25-146 updated several definitions last year, the language regarding racing was deemed insufficient by federal standards. We have worked closely with the Colorado Department of Public Safety to modify this language, ensuring our background check program remains in full compliance with federal law and licensing for the race industry so that the race industry can continue. In summary, these changes will eliminate administrative delays, strengthen our enforcement capabilities, and improve regulatory consistency across the board. I respectfully urge your yes vote on this measure.
I am available to answer any questions the committee may have Thank you Thank you Mr Reid Good afternoon members of the committee For the record Jimmy Reid Director of Legislative Affairs Department of Revenue I had a riveting testimony all lined up but I think with all of the amendments
I can just be here for questions only.
Okay. Members, what questions do we have for our panel? Senator Frizzell.
Thank you. I guess Mr. Reid. I am very curious as to why the Department of Revenue would kind of make such an extreme unilateral decision, even though this is being amended out. I'm very concerned about the level of stakeholding that occurred between your department and the racing community.
Mr. Reid.
Of course, racing community. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Frizzell for the question. I recognize that there was insufficient stake holding on this, which is why ultimately we agreed to have the amendment be ran in this committee and we can, and I look forward to a robust conversation over the interim and hope that all of the stakeholders come to that ready for that discussion and can, you know, propose alternatives and kind of determine the best path forward. This isn't a brand new conversation. As was mentioned by the vice chair, the 2015 DORA report recommended the merger of the gaming and racing divisions ten years ago. While it wasn't the right time then, I think times have continued to change. There's been a variety of updates over those many years and ultimately today, greyhound racing is no longer allowed, including out-of-state wagers made within the state on out-of-state greyhound races. At this point we have one existing track that runs one meet a year. We internally to the department have Director Schroeder overseeing both the gaming and racing divisions already. That's already our internal framework. It's worked extremely well. So what was the next step is looking forward in kind of a complete merger with the elimination of the commission. So I look forward to future conversations. definitely understand the issues that have become very relevant today and look forward to the conversation.
Thank you. Vice Chair Marchman.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. I guess I just want to understand what the problem is. I kind of ask these guys, what's the problem with the commission? What's not working? We ran a bill in 2023 to put this all in place, and now here we are three years later saying, oh, psych, we're kidding. so I just want to understand what the problem is you're asking people to come to the table I just heard from all of them and they're very concerned about animal welfare so I'm really curious what you're expecting them to bring to the table what problem are you trying to solve and what solutions are you open to if they were to bring some um who would like to take that
Mr. Reed thank you Madam Chair uh and thank you for the question so recognizing the 2022
22 DORA report that resulted in the sunset bill that moved forward i think everyone remembers the 2021-22 years of COVID era just trying to get through and ensuring that life can continue as is much less make any changes and so the goal there was to ensure that the race industry can continue and not you know rock any boats with the COVID era what's changed since then is the internal merger, so to speak, with internal leadership. So when we look at trying to run an efficient and effective state government, I do not think it's necessary to uphold necessarily, we can have the conversation over the summer, two separate and distinct commissions that oversee racing separately from gaming. If you look at the gaming commission, there's five seats on there that are generally pretty vague. There's a lawyer with regulatory law experience. There's a CPA. There's a member of the public. There is a business professional, and there's one other that I can't remember right now. Those are all things extremely important to both the racing and the gaming industries. In the proposed bill that is going to be amended, we included two additional seats to ensure that the racing industry still would have a representation on the commission. And when we're looking at the gaming and racing commission, The gaming commission meets on a monthly basis, super predictable, allows for time for industry and department staff to raise issues and settle those issues on a monthly basis. The gaming commission meets quarterly and more and more so, as the former witness said, ad hoc based on issues that come up. So with a more regulated cadence from the gaming commission, that could have been alleviated with bringing up issues earlier to ensure that a race season could have started. And a lot of those issues were unforeseen and took time to work out with the county government, with the racetrack, et cetera. I had one other point, but I'll let you continue the line of questions.
Vice Chair Marchman.
I was just curious what other states have done this. Are there other states? And if you could explain, because I actually know the answer. And so I think there's a thing where casinos and races happen at the same place, and those are some of the states where this has happened. So I'd really like to understand, since that's not our situation, what's the push? I heard you say it's because internally we've got one human doing gaming and racing, but I'd like to understand without having a casino, like what they call it, a racino or something, we don't have that like other states do. So can you tell me what other states that don't have that kind of thing that are like Colorado that are actually combining gaming and racing?
Mr. Schroeder.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Vice Chair, thank you for the question. I can tell you that Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and New York all have that combined gaming and racing commission and departments. Ohio also has a very similar structure on their lottery commission overseeing Racinos, as you probably are aware. Back to Mr. Reed's point, I think that a lot of this looks at operational efficiencies and streamlining operations are some of the initial ideas for this collaboration.
Thank you. Mr. Reid.
I would just also highlight that while we don't have casinos at our track, the track is owned and operated by a casino.
Thank you. Senator Bright.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Questions for Mr. Reid. unfortunately I probably can't ask for a senatorial five that starts right now and goes to that point when we can have a discussion this summer and we we've got a bill in front of us and and a lot of amendments and we kind of need to know where we're at here and I would presume that you have been in the working of building this bill to the to the point that it is right now Would you be able to summarize for me really quickly just what the bill does in simple terms as amended?
Mr. Reid.
Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Bright. Director Schroeder kind of outlined what would be in the existing bill. To be clear, we're supportive of the sponsor's amendments to remove the consolidation of the commission, which is what many of the amendments do in front of you, so that we can have that more robust conversation with all of the stakeholders over this interim, and hopefully come with a compromise or some sort of solution next session. The amendments also touch on fingerprints. I know there's a lot of papers in there, but fingerprints and then one other general cleanup. So what is left in the bill is what Director Schroeder mentioned is some clear and efficient updates to specifically the gaming statutes in terms of allowing director level approval for minor vendor game changes, codifying existing practice for self-exclusion lists for sports betting, updating definitions around gray or the kind of gray market and illegal gambling. So the bill still, as is, we're in full support. It will make incredibly important changes without the consolidation of the commission.
Thanks.
So I do have a question. So, I mean, I could see for operational efficiency why you might want to have these organizations meet at the same time. But I guess here's my question. I would presume that the amount of work related to the other business of the Gaming Commission would far outweigh the amount of work that would be done by the Racing Commission. and so I guess my question really is if you had two members who were racing commission people who were serving on the gaming commission board would that just be like I don't want to say a lot of wasted time but would that just be getting people who were really not interested in the other side of that gaming commission work involved in that do you see what I'm saying I guess it's like, you know, would a veterinarian and another racing commission person have the interest to even serve on something that was mostly related to gaming commission and how much operational efficiency is there in separating those two things? If you, I mean, you know, sometimes having a more targeted smaller commission is a good thing as opposed to have something that really gets big and unwieldy. So that, I guess that's my question.
Mr. Reid.
Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, you know, I think that's a good question. We're looking at all of many boards and commissions across the state government. One of the things that we, there's always a challenge is to fill commissions and board seats. There's just so many, and finding somebody that's interested in dedicating their time voluntarily can be a challenge at times. I think we did not, do not have concerns about filling these seats even with the expanded gaming commission. And while, you know, sometimes the topics may be more or less relevant to individual commission members, I think there's buy-in if you're interested in serving to begin with. The other thing that I'll mention is I think it would ebb and flow in terms of the topic of discussion based on the time of year. Maybe in the winter conversations may lean more towards the gaming industry but leading up to the races, the horse race meets that are in the summer, those meetings may more lean towards ensuring the safe and effective and successful meet then. So I think there a give and take but ultimately I don think we had concerns with finding somebody interested in serving in that role Thank you So outside of the efficiencies that you going to get by doing what going to remain in the bill today
do you think that there would be additional operational efficiencies for the Department of Revenue
if in the future the commissions were consolidated? Mr. Reid.
General efficiencies internally.
I mean, are you saving time? Are you saving money? I mean, what is the reason that the Department of Revenue might want to continue on this path? Great question. Thank you. I think staff time is incredibly important. As we're looking down another year of a budget crisis, not looking any better into the future, the state government continues to be asked to do more with less. So when we're looking at time and staff resources in terms of staff time, this would help dramatically. And the less time we're working on things like administrative tasks of setting up and organizing commission meetings, the more time we can spend directly with the industry in ensuring that it's regulated properly and safe.
Okay, thank you. Additional questions for this panel? Okay, well, seeing none, thank you very much. I do want to say if there's anybody else in the room who has not signed up to testify who would like to, it is your time to come forward. Going once, going twice. Okay, three times. We'll bring our bill sponsor back up for the amendment phase.
Senator Roberts. All right.
Might have an amendment or two for us.
Yes, and since I'm a member of the committee today, if it's okay, I'll just move them and we'll go through them. All right, I move L-001.
Okay, tell us about L-001.
So this is a technical amendment that rephrases something that was in the existing bill with relation to approval of certain games. This is something that's staying in the bill. It has nothing to do with horses. it is about the director being able to approve minor game and minor game changes. And we just needed to phrase it in a slightly different way than what was in the introduced version. Okay, thank you.
Is there any questions about L001? Any objection to L001? Seeing none, L001 is adopted.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L002.
Thank you. Please tell us about L002.
All right. This is the first of two amendments related to the fingerprinting changes that we needed to make in order to be compliant with FBI rules and regulations related to the bill that the legislature passed last year.
Okay, thank you. Are there questions about L-002? Vice Chair Marchman.
Yeah, I was just going through all the amendments, and there's a later amendment that strikes this whole page. and so I was going to talk to the drafter but I'm sure, let's just get through it all I'm great with adding CBI but just a flag that later on in the amendments we end up striking this page so I just want to make sure that the drafter I'm sure the drafter knows better than I do Yes, thank you
Okay, we will flag that and deal with it on seconds if needed Okay, with that, is there any objection to L002? Seeing none, L-002 is adopted. Senator Roberts.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-003.
Thank you. Tell us about L-003.
All right. This is also related to the fingerprinting and changes to comply with federal regulations.
Thank you. Are there questions, concerns about L-003?
Vice Chair Marchman. I just had to take a second to look at it. It was big, and I didn't understand what it did last night. But this is just to make sure we can get the fingerprints. Is that what you're saying? This is all brand new just for fingerprinting?
Senator Roberts.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Madam Vice Chair. This is fingerprinting related to live racing and making sure that those individuals who are participating in that can get their background checks approved.
Thank you. Any questions or concerns about L-003? Any objection to L-003? Seeing none, L-003 is adopted. Senator Roberts.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, now we're going to jump to L-006, and I move L-006.
Thank you. Tell us about it.
So this strikes Section 1 of the bill entirely, and this is one of the amendments that strikes out all of the parts related to the Racing Commission.
Okay. Any questions or concerns about L006? Seeing none, L006 is adopted. Senator Roberts.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L007.
Thank you. Please tell us about L007.
So L007 amends L003 to make some slight changes and adjustments to L3, which was the longer amendment related to the fingerprinting and background checks.
Excellent. Any questions or concerns about L007, which amends L003? Seeing none, is there any objection to L007? Seeing none, L07 is adopted. And, ooh, this is only one piece of paper left. Last one. Senator Roberts.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L008.
Okay, thank you. Tell us about L008.
All right, L-008 strikes a lot of the bill and is the final part of striking all of the topics related to the Racing Commission, as well as narrow the title to remove that part from the title.
Okay, thank you. So, any questions or concerns about L-008? Any objection to L-008? Oh, Vice Chair Marchman.
This is the one that strikes page 16, where we amended earlier. I just wanted to flag that.
Yes.
But I'm great with this.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Yeah, these all, this one got drafted later, of course, than the earlier ones. And so with an unsettled question in the Senate, I think we're okay. Okay. Other questions, concerns about L008? Seeing none, any objection to L008? Seeing none, L008 is adopted. Any further amendments, Senator Roberts?
No.
So, members, anybody on this side of the dais have any amendments? No, that takes us out of the amendment phase. Senator Roberts, please close.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the folks who came to testify and the many others that have engaged in conversations with us about this bill. I'll talk about the Racing Commission part first, and then I'll talk about what the bill actually does now as amended. But I think we heard some good testimony about some of the great work that the horse racing industry does for the state, the people that work in it. We absolutely value them and everything that they bring to our state, to the economy, to the culture, and to the horse industry as a whole. I think a conversation should be had. We had some interesting back and forth today. Thank you all for asking the questions. and this is not something that directly impacts my district like the other parts of the bill does, but I am interested and committed to trying to convene some of those conversations over the interim as well as anybody else that's interested in this as well and see where we can build efficiency. I think seeking to make government more efficient wherever we can is a noble goal. We have to be careful with it, of course, and there are always going to be tensions when that happens with changing something that's been in place for a long time. But if we can make things better on a whole, then that's a conversation we should have, and I hope that that happens over the next few months. So thanks for helping us kick that off. But Senate Bill 163 now, as amended, still does some very important things, mostly technical, mostly small, but for the casinos in our state, for the limited gaming towns in our state, as well as Coloradans as a whole that participate in this, it will make important changes that streamline approval processes for minor games, ensure that we're doing what we can to protect Coloradans from gambling addiction by adding sports betting to the self-exclusion program, and making other changes that make us compliant with federal law and ensure that we're regulating these games in an efficient and modern way. So I would appreciate your support for the amended version of the bill and do thank the Finance Committee for bearing with us as we went through a journey here with these amendments. And I'll just finally thank our great drafter who put this all together very quickly, Mr. Sweetman. We appreciate your work.
Yeah, thank you so much. That's awesome. Okay, closing comments for anybody. Vice Chair Merchman.
Yeah, I just want to say thank you for hearing the concerns of folks, and thank you to the department also for being here to talk. I'm glad this bill does something that very last amendment struck like all the pages and it just made me sad because there's this big bill but now it's just a little bill but I know it still does really important things and I'm excited for the self you can take yourself off the list for all types of betting and I'm glad that we got that in here so thank you very much for being so receptive to the constituents who reached out thank you
additional comments Senator Snyder.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Two words or one hyphenated word strike below? Was that ever considered?
Senator Roberts, would you like to respond to that?
It all came together in a way that did not allow for that, but in hindsight it's 20-20.
Okay, additional comments, questions, closings. Okay, Senator Roberts, an appropriate motion would be
to the Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 163 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
As amended?
As amended.
Okay. Seeing any, no further closing comments. Ms. Rita Bush, will you please take the roll?
Senators, Benavides.
Excused.
Wright.
Yes.
Brazil.
Yes.
Colker.
Aye.
Roberts.
Aye.
Simpson.
Aye.
Snyder.
Aye.
Marchman. Aye. Madam Chair.
Yes. Congratulations. That is unanimously on its way to the Committee of the Whole. Would you like to make a recommendation, Senator Roberts?
You know, actually, no. I just, given all the amendments, I think we're going to want to look at the pre-amend and just make sure we didn't miss anything.
Okay. Great. Well, given that, thank you for good work today, everybody. And Senate Finance is adjourned. Thank you.
Thank you.