An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services.
The 2019 capitol tree was provided by the Colorado State Forest Service. The placard next to the tree reads:
“This subalpine fir tree was provided by
Colorado State Forest Service
Fort Collins District
The tree was harvested at 8,500 feet in northern Larimer County on State Trust Land. Foresters selectively cut trees on the property to improve forest health and mitigate risks from wildfire, insects and disease.”
by Patti Dahlberg
The “Red Summer” of 1919 refers to violent race riots that took place in more than 30 cities throughout the country between May and October. The most well-known confrontations were in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and outside of Elaine, Arkansas. The riots in the North marked the culmination of steadily growing tensions surrounding the migration of an estimated half million African Americans from the rural South to the cities of the North to work in the factories, warehouses, and mills experiencing severe labor shortages due to military enlistments. When thousands of soldiers returned home from the war, they found few available jobs. Growing financial insecurity caused racial and ethnic prejudices to rage to the surface. At the same time, African-American veterans who had fought and sacrificed for freedom and democracy overseas in WWI found themselves back home and denied basic rights such as adequate housing and equality under the law.
The first acts of violence occurred in the South and then became more prevalent in northern cities. On July 19, 1919, in Washington, D.C., a group of white men started randomly beating African-American pedestrians and streetcar riders after hearing that an African-American man had been accused of rape. When the police refused to intervene, African-Americans fought back. After four days of rioting, six were dead and another 50 were seriously injured.
On July 27, an African-American teenager drowned in Lake Michigan after being stoned by a group of white youths for violating the unofficial segregation of Chicago’s beaches. His death, and the 
police’s refusal to arrest the white man whom eyewitnesses identified as causing it, sparked a week of rioting between gangs of African Americans and white Chicagoans. When the riots finally ended on August 3, 38 were dead and more than 500 injured. In addition, a thousand African-American families lost their homes to vandalism and fire.
On September 30 outside of Elaine, Arkansas, in a confrontation between white planters opposing the union organization efforts of African-American sharecroppers, a white man was killed. Rumors of an African-American revolt caused whites to gather en masse to “put down” what was being called a “black insurrection.” Men from other counties joined in and soon 500 to 1,000 armed men in mobs were attacking African Americans on sight. There was no exact account of the number of casualties but estimates put the number killed somewhere between 200 and 800. Colorado did not evidently experience the level of race violence that occurred in other states.
Anarchists and the Red Scare
In April of 1919, more than 30 bombs were mailed to prominent citizens, including John D. Rockefeller, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, and America’s first Secretary of Labor, William Wilson. Most of the bombs did not detonate or were discovered in New York post offices before being delivered, so there was no loss of life although there was one reported serious injury. No one was prosecuted for the mail bombs, but history presumes that those responsible were anarchists, specifically followers of Italian anarchist Luigi 
Galleani. It was widely believed that “Galleanists” orchestrated the mail bombs and were also responsible for a coordinated attack on judges, politicians, law enforcement officials, and prominent businessmen in eight American cities on June 2. Large bombs, each fueled by 20 pounds of dynamite, exploded at residences in Boston, Cleveland, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Washington, D.C. The blasts shook neighborhoods and destroyed homes. Debris and shrapnel injured several people. A night watchman in New York was killed and when the bomb at U.S. Attorney General Palmer’s residence in D.C. exploded prematurely, it killed the anarchist carrying it and narrowly missed a young Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt who had passed by the house just moments before. None of the targeted individuals were killed. Bomb scares continued throughout the year and into 1920, when a large explosion in front of the Morgan Bank at 23 Wall Street killed more than 30 people and wounded hundreds more. To deflect the impending threat of anarchy and violence, Colorado legislators passed Senate Bill No. 30 “Red Flag – Display made a Felony” to prevent the display of the red flag, considered to be “the emblem of anarchy,” in public in the State of Colorado.
The air was heavy with the fear of the next “red terror” attack. U.S. Attorney General Palmer responded with a massive investigation by the decade-old
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) led by a young Justice Department attorney named J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover and his team collected detailed information on suspected radicals and their activities. Attorney General Palmer used this information to initiate a series of raids, called “Palmer Raids,” to target radical organizations throughout the country. Not to be outdone, Governor Oliver H. Shoup called Colorado legislators into a Special Session to “curb and eradicate threats against our form of government.” The Colorado legislature passed House Bill No. 1 “Anarchy and Sedition – Suppression of Conspiracies against State” describing what constituted the felony of anarchy and sedition in Colorado and assigning a penalty of up to 20 years of prison time. The legislature also appropriated funds to pay for any expenses incurred in “suppressing threatened tumult and riot in the state, and in maintaining law and order therein by the use of the National Guard.”
During the Palmer Raids, approximately 10,000 people were arrested for allegedly violating the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, or the Immigration Act of 1918. Of those arrested, 3,500 were detained and 556 were eventually deported. After the coordinated raids in 33 cities on January 2, 1920, reports of brutality and detainee abuse became public. The constitutionality of the raids and law enforcement actions during the raids were openly questioned and publicly criticized. Growing distress regarding the abuse of the civil liberties of those arrested simply because they were immigrants turned public opinion against Palmer and his raids. During the January 2nd federal raid in Denver, federal agents could find only eight radicals. After January 1920, the raids tapered off and the country’s fear of insurrection subsided.
Sources:
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=1102
https://www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/early-fbi-terrorism-case-062819
by Patti Dahlberg
With the 2020 Legislative Session just around the corner, it seems like a good time to review a few bill basics on bill sponsorship, bill summaries, and the different versions of a bill.
Prime Sponsors. Each bill must have at least one prime sponsor in each chamber. The prime sponsor in the second chamber may be added after the bill’s introduction in the first chamber but must be designated before the bill passes on third reading in the first chamber. Prime sponsors are responsible for explaining the bill and its purpose in committee hearings and in subsequent floor discussions regarding the bill. Prime sponsors are the first names in the list of the bill’s sponsors for each chamber. If the bill started in the Senate it will have a Senate number and Senate sponsorship will be listed on the bill first, with the Senate prime sponsor listed in bold type. Before this Senate bill can pass from the Senate to the House it must have a Representative who has agreed to be the “prime” sponsor in the House. This second house prime sponsor thus agrees to explain the bill and its purpose in committee hearings and in subsequent floor discussions in the second chamber. See also “Bill Sponsor Basics: and New Rules on Joint Prime Sponsorship of Bills”, December 22, 2016.
Sponsors or cosponsors. Other legislators may want to show support for a bill by having their names listed on it, but not take on the responsibility of carrying the bill. If a legislator adds his or her name to the bill before the bill’s introduction, he or she is a “sponsor” of the bill. If a legislator adds his or her name after the bill’s introduction, he or she is a “cosponsor” of the bill. The level of sponsorship is identical, the terms merely indicate whether the legislator’s name was added before or after introduction. See also “Bill Sponsor Basics: A Quick Pre-session Review”, December 27, 2012.
Bill sponsorship must be verified or verifiable. A legislator cannot simply add another legislator’s name to a bill. The legislator whose name is to be added to the bill must either personally contact staff to make that request or do so in writing. Legislator A can alert staff that Legislator B wishes to be added as a sponsor to his or her bill but Legislator A should remind Legislator B that he or she will also need to confirm this wish with staff in order for it to go into effect. The House and Senate front desk staff have forms for legislators to use when updating sponsor information after the bill’s introduction. See also “Bill Sponsor Basics: A Quick Pre-session Review”, December 27, 2012.
Joint Prime Sponsors. If a bill is joint prime sponsored, the two joint prime sponsors will be listed first, in bold type, and with an “and” between the names. Joint prime sponsorship indicates that 
both sponsors agree to jointly and equally sponsor a bill through that chamber’s legislative process. If the joint prime sponsorship is in the first chamber the bill counts against the five-bill limit for both of the joint prime sponsors. A first chamber joint prime sponsor can be added before or after the bill is introduced. If the joint prime sponsor is added before a bill’s introduction and already has five bill requests, he or she will need to seek delayed bill authorization from the Committee on Delayed Bills to be added to that bill. Prime or joint prime sponsorship in the second house does not count against a legislator’s five-bill limit. See also “Bill Sponsor Basics: and New Rules on Joint Prime Sponsorship of Bills”, December 22, 2016 and “To Prime or to Joint Prime”, December 22, 2011.
Bill Summaries. Every introduced bill and concurrent resolution has a bill summary. This summary is written in plain language and is intended to be a succinct, clear, and accurate synopsis of the major points of the bill. Bill drafters generally avoid including legalistic and technical terms unless these terms are necessary to avoid confusing or misleading the reader. The summary is not a rewrite of the entire bill and generally does not include detailed information, but should provide a clear idea of what the bill is doing. The only way for a reader to be certain of the details in the bill is to read the full bill. The bill summary appearing on the bill just before the language of the bill applies to the introduced version of the bill and remains unchanged on the bill as it moves through the legislative process, in spite of any amendments passed. For some bills, the original bill summary will continue to be an accurate summary of the bill through enactment, but the reader should not trust that the printed bill summary is accurate after the first committee hearing. If a bill is amended in the first chamber in such a way that the bill summary is no longer accurate, the drafter will update the bill summary and an electronic version will be available on that bill’s webpage on the General Assembly’s website.
Bill versions. Bills go through several steps during the legislative process, and every step a bill completes is “stamped” starting in the lower right 
margin on the front page of the bill. One glance at this “record” tells you where the bill has been and when the bill was amended. The version of the bill is indicated in the upper right side on the front page of the bill. If you are following a bill through the legislative process you will want to be certain that you have the correct bill version in front of you for each step. See also “Bill Versions Mark the Path from Introduction to Final Passage”, February 13, 2015.
By Jennifer Gilroy
To listen to the news you would think the U.S. Supreme Court was concerned only with Second Amendment rights in hearing oral arguments last Monday. But they actually saved some energy for a vigorous discussion about copyrighting the annotations to state statutes.
As we explained in LegiSource in April of 2017 (it takes a while for a case to wend its way from the trial court to the U.S. Supreme Court), 
while the text of the statutes is not copyrightable, most parts of the federal and state codes are accompanied by “ancillary works” such as editor’s notes, source notes, and, most substantively, annotations that summarize appellate court cases interpreting the statutes. Up to now, most states have routinely filed a copyright on these writings, recognizing them as original, individual expressions that have a “modicum of creativity” (the general standard for copyrighting material). But now, the assumption that these writings are copyrightable is called into question.
Our earlier article explained that the State of Georgia sued Public.resource.org (PRO) after it purchased a copy of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) and posted it, in its entirety, online. Georgia claimed this posting infringed on Georgia’s copyright of the annotations.[1] As explained in the earlier article, Georgia successfully defended against PRO’s motion for summary judgment in the case pending before the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The District Court determined that the Georgia statutory annotations are, in fact, original works entitled to broad copyright protection.
PRO, an organization whose mission is to increase access to government materials, appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Eleventh Circuit). The question before the Eleventh Circuit was whether it should treat the annotations in the OCGA in the same manner under copyright law as a legislative enactment or a judicial opinion. It is uncontested that legislative enactments and judicial opinions are not copyrightable because they represent the exercise of sovereign power. Because they are written by the People’s representatives, they are in effect written by the People and are therefore part of the public domain. This policy is referred to as the government edicts doctrine.
In October of 2018, the Eleventh Circuit observed that the issue before it was a “close one,” acknowledging that there were important considerations of public policy at stake on both sides. Ultimately, however, it concluded that the annotations in the OCGA were sufficiently “law-like” to be regarded as a sovereign work and therefore not copyrightable. In reaching this conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit stated that: The annotations clearly had authoritative weight in explicating and establishing the meaning and effect of Georgia’s law; the procedures by which the annotations were incorporated in the OCGA bore the hallmarks of legislative process, namely bicameralism and presentment; and Lexis, with which the Georgia Code Revision Commission contracted to draft the annotations, did so pursuant to highly detailed instructions set out in the contract.
Last March, the state of Georgia petitioned the United States Supreme Court (the Court) for a writ of certiorari, posing the question whether the government edicts doctrine extends to, and thus renders uncopyrightable, works that lack the force of law such as the annotations in the OCGA. The Court granted Georgia’s petition. Over the spring, summer, and fall, there were 33 amicus briefs filed. The amicus brief filed by Lexis even included a citation to the April 2017 LegiSource article. After the briefing schedule concluded, the Court heard oral arguments on December 2nd. We anxiously await the Court’s ruling likely sometime before June next year.
However, as explained in the previous article, the outcome of the case will not directly affect Colorado. In 2016, the Committee on Legal Services suspended the practice of copyrighting the annotations to the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Committee recognized that, unlike most states, Colorado’s nonpartisan staff in the Office of Legislative Legal Services writes the annotations. Because the annotations are the product of state-paid legislative staff and are made freely available on the Colorado General Assembly’s public access website, the Committee decided a copyright was not appropriate.
[1] For purposes of this case, “annotations” includes “history lines, repeal lines, cross references, commentaries, case notations, editor’s notes, excerpts from law review articles, summaries of opinions of the Attorney General of Georgia, summaries of advisory opinions of the State Bar, and other research references.”
Earlier this week we published part I of our series providing summaries of the interim committee bills that the Legislative Council approved at its meeting last Friday, November 15. Of the 20 committees that were authorized to meet during the 2019 interim, 15 recommended bills to the Legislative Council.
Earlier, we summarized bills approved from seven of those committees. In today’s article, we summarize bills recommended by the remaining eight committees.
The Pension Review Commission met twice during the 2019 interim for an annual briefing from the Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA) and from the Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA). The Commission also discussed matters regarding PERA and considered one bill recommended by the FPPA Board of Directors (Board) for introduction during the 2020 legislative session. The Commission recommended that bill to the Legislative Council, which approved the bill for introduction.
Bill A: Concerning modifications to the pension plans administered by the fire and police pension association.
The bill modifies the method by which the local government contribution to state-assisted old hire pension plans is calculated to more precisely set contribution requirements as the plans’ liabilities decrease. The bill modifies the statewide defined benefit plan as follows:
The bill modifies the death and disability plan by increasing the maximum contribution rate in 2021 to 3% of salary and authorizing the board to increase the contribution every year by up to .2% of the member’s salary.
For members hired before January 1, 1997, the state previously payed the costs for those members’ participation in the death and disability plan. In the mid-1990s, the general assembly determined that the costs associated with death and disability benefits should be covered by local governments. The general assembly made a lump-sum payment to cover the costs of participation in the death and disability plan for members hired before January 1, 1997, and implemented a system to cover the costs of death and disability benefits for members hired thereafter. The FPPA recently determined that the amount of the lump-sum payment from the state was insufficient to cover the death and disability benefits for members hired before January 1, 1997. The bill requires the general assembly to make an additional lump-sum payment to the FPPA to fund the unfunded liabilities of the death and disability benefits for those members.
To review the bill recommended by the Pension Review Commission, please visit the commission’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Nicole Myers.
The School Safety Interim Study Committee met four times during the 2019 interim to study issues relating to school safety, emergency response planning, the prevention of threats to schools, and programs and methods for identifying and monitoring students in crisis. The committee heard testimony on a wide range of issues: School security, mental health challenges, safe2tell, the state auditor’s report on school safety programs, and many more. The committee requested the drafting of 11 bills and one resolution and voted to advance five bills and the resolution to Legislative Council. All of the recommended legislation received favorable votes from the Legislative Council.
Bill A: Concerning excused absences in public schools resulting from behavioral health concerns.
Current law requires school districts to adopt a written policy setting forth the school district’s attendance requirements. The bill requires the policy to include excused absences for behavioral health concerns.
Bill B: Concerning the need for services for juveniles with severe behavioral health conditions in the context of school safety, including residential treatment.
The bill instructs the School Safety Resource Center (center) in the Department of Public Safety to convene a working group of stakeholders to assess the needs of school districts with respect to the adequacy and availability of residential mental health treatment for children and youth who are identified by school personnel as having severe behavioral or mental health disorders and potential ways to resolve these needs. The working group must gather information on the availability, need, and cost associated with residential treatment services for children and youth in Colorado. The center shall use the data to prepare a report and make any legislative recommendations to address the mental health needs of children and youth in Colorado. The center must present the report and any legislative recommendations as part of its presentation to its committee of reference at a hearing held pursuant to the “State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act” in January 2021.
Bill C: Concerning expanding behavioral health training for kindergarten through twelfth grade educators.
The bill requires the Department of Education (department) to offer a train-the-trainer program (program) designed to improve school culture, promote youth behavioral and mental health, and prepare attendees to teach a youth behavioral and mental health training course. The program must include evidence-based instruction on, and prepare an attendee to teach, a youth behavioral and mental health training course. Participation in the program by local education providers is voluntary. The department may enter into an agreement with an organization to provide the program. The department must annually evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The general assembly must annually appropriate up to $1 million for the program. The program is repealed June 30, 2024.
Bill D: Concerning enhancements to the safe2tell program.
Under current law, the safe2tell program must provide awareness and educational materials to preschools. The bill repeals this requirement.
The bill requires the safe2tell program to:
The bill allows the attorney general to disclose to law enforcement personnel any materials or information obtained through operation of the safe2tell program if the attorney general reasonably deems the disclosure necessary to prevent imminent physical harm or serious bodily injury to one or more persons.
Bill E: Concerning creating a multi-agency working group to address school safety.
The bill creates the Colorado interagency working group on school safety (working group) to enhance school safety through the cost-effective use of public resources. The working group consists of 14 voting members, including four legislative members. The bill describes the working group’s duties and areas of study. The working group may contract with a consultant to optimize the alignment and effectiveness of the school safety efforts in Colorado and identify evidence-based best practices. The bill repeals the working group on September 1, 2023.
Resolution A: Concerning the support of the “I Love U Guys” foundation.
The joint resolution highlights the extraordinary work the “I Love U Guys” foundation is doing for school safety and provides the General Assembly’s support for the foundation’s work.
To review the bills and the resolution recommended by the School Safety Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Michael Dohr.
During the 2019 interim, the Transportation Legislation Review Committee held two hearings at the State Capitol to get reports and make bill recommendations. In accordance with the committee’s charge, the committee also toured mountain areas and western Colorado. During the tour, the committee met with:
At the last committee hearing on October 28, the committee voted to recommend five bills to the Legislative Council, all of which were approved.
Bill A: Concerning license plates:
This bill creates a license plate reissuance process and changes Colorado’s license plate color scheme on January 2021. The new scheme will display white letters and numbers over a background of dark green mountains and a white sky. Starting in 2021, the license plates expire when an owner transfers title or interest in a vehicle, so the plates may not be transferred to another vehicle. Owners of expired license plates will pay any associated fees with the issuance of new license plates, but the Department of Transportation (department) may not recover any incremental costs from producing or distributing the new license plates.
The bill applies to all Class C motor vehicles, except for horseless carriages. The department must exhaust its stock of current license plates before issuing license plates with the new color scheme.
Bill B: Concerning a requirement that the high-performance transportation enterprise include information about its public-private partnerships in its annual report to the legislative committees of the house of representatives and the senate that have jurisdiction over transportation.
By February 15, 2021, this bill requires the high-performance transportation enterprise (HPTE) to include the following information for each public-private partnership in its report:
Bill C: Concerning the acquisition of drivers’ licenses by certain persons in the custody of the state department of human services.
This bill creates a grant program within the Department of Human Services (department) to reimburse counties for the cost of driver education classes for 15- to 17-year-old youth in foster care. The state board of human services must promulgate rules to administer the program. Each county that receives a grant must submit an annual report to the department, and the department must submit an annual summary report to the General Assembly. The program repeals on September 1, 2030, pending a sunset review.
The bill clarifies that county departments of human or social services are not liable for any injury that may occur while a youth in foster care is receiving driving instruction. The bill also clarifies that a certified court order is sufficient documentation for eligible foster youth to apply for driver licenses.
Bill D: Concerning permanent authorization for third-party providers to perform vehicle identification number verification inspections for commercial vehicles.
Under current law, the Colorado state patrol administers a pilot program that allows a third-party transportation organization to perform vehicle identification number (VIN) verifications on commercial vehicles. This bill makes the program permanent.
Bill E: Concerning the creation of a single annual fleet overweight permit for a commercial motor vehicle fleet that includes both vehicles that have a quad axle grouping and vehicle combinations with a trailer that has two or three axles.
Under current law, owners of commercial motor-vehicle fleets may apply to the department of transportation for two separate annual non-interstate overweight divisible load permits: quad axle and two- or three-axle trailer. The bill combines the two permits and creates one annual fleet permit for non-interstate overweight divisible load quad axles and two- or three-axle trailers.
To review the bills recommended by the Transportation Legislative Review Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jason Gelender or Jery Payne.
The Wildfire Matters Review Committee is charged with reviewing and proposing legislation or other policy changes related to wildfire prevention, mitigation, and related matters, including public safety and forest health issues. The Committee met three times during the 2019 interim and heard presentations from representatives of a wide variety of entities involved in wildfire prevention, mitigation, and response. Among other presentations, the committee heard from the Division of Fire Prevention and Control within the Department of Public Safety and the federal Bureau of Land Management about state and federal efforts to respond to wildfires. The committee heard from the Colorado State Forest Service and the West Region Wildfire Council about managing the state’s forests. The committee also heard about new technologies used for early detection of wildfires, insurance coverage for wildfires, and the benefits of improving residences to protect against wildfires. The committee heard from the Colorado Resiliency Office within the Department of Local Affairs about its work with local entities to aid in the recovery from natural disasters.
The committee recommended five bills to the Legislative Council for consideration in the 2020 legislative session, all of which were approved.
Bill A: Concerning modifications to the “Forest Restoration and Wildfire Risk Mitigation Act”.
The bill modifies the forest restoration and wildfire mitigation grant program in the Department of Higher Education. Under current law, the grant program’s share of a project cannot exceed 50% of the total cost of the project. The bill allows a project to receive up to 75% of its costs through the grant program if the project is located in an area with fewer economic resources, thereby reducing the applicant’s share to 25 percent. Additionally, the bill:
Bill B: Concerning surplus military vehicles.
The bill clarifies that a surplus military vehicle is not included in the definition of an off-highway vehicle if a municipality, county, or fire protection district uses the surplus military vehicle for firefighting efforts, including mitigation.
Bill C: Concerning the inclusion of firefighters employed by the department of public safety in the division of fire prevention and control in certain employee benefits.
The bill makes benefit changes for Division of Fire Prevention and Control employees in the Department of Public Safety, including insurance for certain heart conditions and cancers, as well as pension benefits.
Bill D: Concerning programs to reduce wildfire risk through outreach to people experiencing homelessness.
The bill creates the wildfire risk reduction through homeless outreach grant program in the Department of Local Affairs (department). The program awards grants to conduct outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness to reduce wildfire risks in the wildland-urban interface. The department is directed to convene a working group to identify emerging, promising, and best practices for conducting this type of outreach and to issue grants consistent with the identified practices.
Bill E: Concerning wildfire mitigation assistance for landowners.
The bill creates the wildfire mitigation resources and best practices grant program in the Department of Local Affairs. Local governments, special districts, tribal agencies or programs, faith-based organizations, and nonprofit organizations are eligible for grant funding to conduct outreach to landowners to inform them of resources available for wildfire mitigation and best practices for wildfire mitigation.
To review the bills recommended by the Wildfire Matters Review Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Bob Lackner.
The Water Resources Review Committee (WRRC) met five times during the 2019 interim, including one meeting in Steamboat Springs held during the annual Colorado Water Congress summer conference, and toured the South Platte River basin in northeastern Colorado with the Colorado Foundation for Water Education. The WRRC heard presentations on a variety of water issues, including various basin-specific issues; proposed water infrastructure projects; the instream flow program; the status of Colorado River compact compliance, including proposed demand management programs; water reuse, including the use of graywater; and Colorado’s water plan.
At its final hearing on October 24, the WRRC considered six bills, recommending four of them to the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council approved all four bills for introduction in the 2020 legislative session.
Bill A: Concerning the inclusion of public input in the development of a state water resources demand management program.
The bill requires the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the WRRC to involve the public and provide opportunities for public comment, using procedures similar to those used for initial adoption of the state water plan, before adopting a final or significantly amended water resources demand management program as part of the Colorado upper basin states’ drought contingency plan.
Bill B: Concerning a requirement that the university of Colorado study potential uses of emerging technologies to more effectively manage Colorado’s water supply.
The bill declares that new technologies, such as blockchain, telemetry, improved sensors, and advanced aerial observation platforms, can improve monitoring, management, conservation, and trading of water and enhance confidence in the reliability of data underlying water rights transactions. To advance the potential use of these new technologies, the bill:
Bill C: Concerning the inspection of water wells.
The bill requires the state engineer to employ a minimum of four water well inspectors in the state’s water well inspection program.
The bill requires the State Board of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors, on or before November 1, 2020, to promulgate rules for identifying high-risk water wells that should be prioritized for inspection. Thereafter, the state engineer shall use the rules to identify high-risk water wells and shall prioritize the inspection of high-risk water wells.
The bill clarifies that money in the well inspection cash fund shall be appropriated to and expended by the state engineer only for the well inspection program.
Bill D: Concerning a study to consider the strengthening of the prohibition on speculative appropriations of water.
Current law specifies that an appropriation of water cannot be based on speculation, as evidenced by specified circumstances. The bill requires the executive director of the Department of Natural Resources to convene a work group to explore ways to strengthen current anti-speculation law and to report to the WRRC by August 15, 2021, regarding any recommended changes.
To review the bills recommended by the Water Resources Review Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Thomas Morris.
The Investor-owned Utility Review Interim Study Committee was created to examine the programs and practices of electric investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in Colorado, with a particular focus on issues involving consumer choice and affordability in electric supply. The committee met twice during the 2019 interim, once on August 22 to receive testimony from a variety of individuals and groups, and once on October 3 to take more testimony and consider proposed legislation. Both meetings were held at the State Capitol.
At the October 3 meeting, the following three bills were proposed and he committee recommended all three to the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council approved all three bills at its November 15 meeting, so they will be introduced during the 2020 legislative session.
Bill A: Concerning investigations by the public utilities commission to evaluate the implications of allowing community choice of wholesale electric supply in Colorado through the vehicle of community choice energy authorities.
The bill directs the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to evaluate the viability of the wholesale, opt-out model of community choice energy (CCE) in Colorado. CCE is defined as a mechanism that allows cities, counties, or groups of cities and counties, to combine their purchasing power and choose alternative electricity suppliers while the IOU continues to own and operate the transmission and distribution system. The PUC is directed to study CCE through a third-party feasibility study and an investigatory docket.
Bill B: Concerning the stabilization of state funding for energy efficiency improvement programs.
Beginning in FY 2020-21, the bill establishes conditional annual transfers from the general fund to both the energy outreach Colorado low-income energy assistance fund and the Colorado energy office low-income energy assistance fund. The transfers take place if the amount of severance tax revenue transferred to either fund in a given year falls below $1.0 million. The amount transferred to either fund is 75 percent of the difference between $1.0 million and the amount of severance tax received for the year. The conditional general fund transfers are authorized for four years and are repealed on September 1, 2024.
Bill C: Concerning increased consumer protections for customers of investor-owned utilities.
Bill C requires the PUC to collect information from utilities on medical exemptions from tiered electricity rates; adopt standard practices for gas and electric utilities to follow when disconnecting service due to nonpayment; and conduct a proceeding to evaluate a policy of requiring public utilities to report positive information to credit reporting agencies. The bill also prohibits public utilities from employing certain rate structures without obtaining opt-in from customers.
To review the bills recommended by the Investor-owned Utility Review Interim Study Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Duane Gall.
The Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission met four times during the 2019 interim. The commission heard presentations from state departments, early childhood professionals, members of the nonprofit and advocacy communities, and members of the public on a wide range of subjects related to early childhood and school readiness, including:
The commission considered four bills at its October 31 meeting, all of which it voted to move forward to the Legislative Council for consideration. The Legislative Council approved all four bills.
Bill A: Concerning measures to support the early childhood educator workforce.
The bill makes several changes to state law related to early childhood workforce programs, including requiring that:
Bill B: Concerning the creation of the “Helping Others Manage Early (HOME) Childhood Act”.
The bill requires CDHS to issue a request for proposals to implement a statewide public awareness campaign. The campaign must be in place no later than the 2021-22 academic year. The public awareness campaign must ensure that people connected to early childhood education are aware of:
The bill also requires CDHS, in collaboration with CDE and the early childhood councils, to offer two types of workshops throughout the state, multicounty workshops focused on professional development in the early childhood education field and regional workshops focused on how to open a child care center or preschool.
Bill C: Concerning state assistance to increase quality levels in early childhood education programs.
The bill requires CDHS to provide technical assistance and financial incentives to help early childhood care providers with a Colorado Shines quality rating advance to or maintain at least a level-three rating. Early childhood councils must assist CDHS by providing local community outreach and engagement strategies. Under current law, early childhood councils that apply for school-readiness quality improvement funding must submit a school readiness plan that includes targeting or recruiting programs rated as level two or higher, or that are actively working towards a level-two rating but face demonstrated hardship. The bill requires that plans instead target or recruit programs that are rated at level one or higher. If an early childhood council received funding prior to FY 2020-21, the council must amend their plan.
Bill D: Concerning creation of a statewide program of early childhood mental health consultation.
The bill requires CDHS to develop and implement a statewide voluntary program of early childhood mental health consultation by July 1, 2022. The program is intended to increase the number of qualified mental health consultants supporting professionals who work with young children and to give guidance and support to families, caregivers, and providers in addressing the healthy social-emotional developmental needs of children through age eight. In developing the program, CDHS must create a model of consultation, a professional development plan, and a certification process for the consultants, as well as a data collection and information system to analyze implementation and outcomes. CDHS and the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing must also explore funding options for the program and report their findings to the Joint Budget Committee by January 1, 2022.
To review the bills recommended by the Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission, please visit the commission’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jane Ritter.
The Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning the Treatment of Persons with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems met three times during 2019 to monitor and examine the work, findings, and recommendations of the statutorily created advisory task force. Specifically, the committee:
The advisory task force met monthly through 2019 and focused on the issues of housing, data and information sharing, and diversion, as those topics relate to persons with mental health disorders who are involved in the criminal and juvenile justice systems.
At the Oversight Committee’s October 10 meeting it considered five bills, all of which it voted to move forward to the Legislative Council for consideration, all of which were subsequently approved.
Bill A: Concerning eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits for workers who are exposed to psychologically traumatic events.
Current law defines a “psychologically traumatic event” for determining workers’ compensation benefit eligibility to include visual exposure to death or serious bodily injury within a worker’s usual experience. The bill adds audible exposure to death or serious bodily injury within a worker’s usual experience to the definition of “psychologically traumatic event”.
Bill B: Concerning the implementation of recommendations from the legislative oversight committee concerning the treatment of persons with mental health disorders in the criminal and juvenile justice systems regarding juveniles who have committed sex offenses.
Under current law, an adult or juvenile convicted of certain sex offenses must be placed on the Colorado sex offender registry. The bill places fewer convicted juveniles on the registry. More specifically, the bill removes the requirement of registration for juveniles who relocate to Colorado if the juvenile’s duty to register in another state has been terminated by court order. The bill also eliminates the requirements of lifetime registration for an adult who has more than one adjudication as a juvenile. Further, it expands the discretion of judges not to require juveniles to register as sex offenders if an evaluator recommends exemption and the juvenile is otherwise statutorily eligible. Additionally, the bill allows for juveniles adjudicated for multiple sex offenses to petition to deregister, as well as for “lookbacks” by courts to remove someone from the registry, or add someone, depending on new information. Lastly, the measure partially seals the juvenile list from the public and limits access to law enforcement, probation, and parole personnel, the division of child welfare in the department of human services, and victims of an offense.
Bill C: Concerning programs to build statewide capacity to access supportive housing services.
The bill establishes new grant programs within the Division of Housing in the Department of Local Affairs. Specifically, the bill designates grant programs for supportive housing services to individuals in underserved communities with behavioral, mental health, or substance abuse disorders who have been involved in the criminal justice system. The grant programs include funding for: pre-development for creating supportive housing interventions; supportive housing and homelessness prevention; training and technical assistance for supportive housing; and homelessness data integration and resource collection.
Bill D: Concerning the development of a strategic plan to implement a trusted interoperability platform.
The bill creates the trusted interoperability Platform Advisory Committee in the Department of Public Safety. The advisory committee is charged with developing a strategic plan to implement a trusted interoperability platform that is capable of securely exchanging information between criminal and juvenile justice systems and community health agencies. The bill outlines that the advisory committee is to consist of 11 members from various agencies, and the plan must be submitted to the General Assembly by September 1, 2021.
Bill E – Concerning the implementation of recommendations from the legislative oversight committee concerning the treatment of persons with mental health disorders in the criminal and juvenile justice systems regarding juveniles who have committed sex offenses.
The bill extends the repeal date for the Legislative Oversight Committee and the associated advisory task force from July 1, 2020, to July 1, 2023. The bill decreases the membership on the task force by four members and clarifies the roles and additional duties of both oversight and task force committee members. The bill includes funding for task force support, to be provided by Legislative Council Staff.
To review the bills recommended by the Treatment of Persons with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal Justice System, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jane Ritter.
The General Assembly approved 20 legislative study committees to meet and recommend bills during the 2019 interim. The deadline for most of the committees to approve bills for consideration by the Legislative Council was November 4. The Legislative Council met last Friday, November 15, and considered bills recommended by 15 of those interim committees. This week we will provide a summary of the bills that the Legislative Council approved for introduction during the 2020 legislative session.
For more information on interim committees generally and how they operate, see “Interim Committees: Just the Facts, Ma’am“, posted 7/21/2017.
The Energy Legislation Review Interim Study Committee met four times over the interim and toured a number of facilities throughout the state including a wind project; oil and gas facilities; a wastewater reclamation facility; a generation station; a hydroelectric facility; and a net-zero, all electric community. The committee heard from a number of retail electric providers, renewable energy companies, oil and gas policy groups, state regulators, and county commissioners. The committee initially requested the drafting of six bills, one of which was withdrawn before the hearing at which bill drafts were considered, one of which was withdrawn at the hearing at which bill drafts were considered, and three of which the committee voted to recommend to Legislative Council for introduction. The Legislative Council approved all three of the recommended bills as follows:
Bill A: Concerning the valuation of property used to store electricity.
The bill ensures that clean energy resources and energy storage systems used to store electricity are assessed for purposes of property tax valuation in the same manner that renewable energy facility property is assessed.
Bill B: Concerning the establishment of a statewide standard for the sale of biodiesel‑blended diesel fuel in Colorado.
This bill establishes a statewide requirement starting in 2021 that all diesel fuel sold or offered for sale in Colorado between June 1 and September 15 of a given year contain at least 5% biodiesel, which increases to 10% biodiesel in 2023. The air quality control commission, in consultation with the director of the division of oil and public safety, must establish through rulemaking a waiver process for the biodiesel‑blending requirement and require labeling of biodiesel-blended fuel to reflect the percentage of biodiesel included in the blended fuel.
Bill C: Concerning the transmission of renewable energy through transmission lines that cross property subject to a conservation easement.
The bill authorizes the installation and maintenance of electric transmission lines that transmit renewable energy across land that is subject to a conservation easement if the installation and maintenance is consistent with the conservation purposes of the conservation easement.
To review the bills recommended by the Energy Legislation Review Interim Study Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jennifer Berman.
The Making Higher Education Attainable Interim Study Committee met five times during the 2019 interim, including tours of Emily Griffith Technical College in Denver and each of the three institutions of higher education at the Auraria Higher Education Campus. The committee heard testimony on a number of subjects, including the costs of higher education, state funding related to higher education, student degree and program completion, student debt, and programs and counseling that help prepare students for postsecondary education. The committee requested that staff draft eight bills, three of which were ultimately recommended to the Legislative Council. All three bills were approved by the Legislative Council.
Bill A: Concerning changes to the continuing administration of the Colorado opportunity scholarship initiative, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation.
This bill amends provisions relating to the Colorado opportunity scholarship initiative, including:
The bill appropriates $5 million to the Colorado opportunity scholarship initiative fund to implement the initiative.
Bill B: Concerning a statewide plan for awarding college credit for work-related experience.
This bill requires an existing council charged with looking at general education courses (council) to implement a plan for determining and awarding academic credit for postsecondary education based on work-related experience.
Furthermore, state institutions of higher education (institutions) are required to evaluate student learning from work-related experience and award appropriate academic credit for the experience. Also, institutions shall accept and transfer academic credit awarded for work-related experience as courses with guaranteed-transfer designation, unless the council creates a plan concerning awarding and transferring academic credit for work-related experience for courses with guaranteed-transfer designation.
Bill C: Concerning an improve student success innovation pilot program through the collaboration of multiple institutions of higher education to increase the number of students who successfully complete postsecondary education.
This bill creates the improve student success innovation pilot program (pilot program) in the department of higher education (department) to implement a program designed to incentivize collaboration among multiple institutions of higher education to improve student success and increase the number of students who complete postsecondary education.
When selecting a program or programs for the pilot program, the department and commission on higher education (commission) shall prioritize program proposals that address common barriers to student success and the completion of postsecondary education, as well as other factors.
The department and commission shall submit an annual report to the joint budget committee and the education committees of the General Assembly regarding the efficacy of the program.
The general assembly shall appropriate $20 million each year for the 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 fiscal years, from the general fund to the department to distribute to the state institutions of higher education selected to implement their projects. The pilot program repeals on July 1, 2024.
To review the bills recommended by the Making Higher Education Attainable Interim Study Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Conrad Imel.
The Opioid and Other Substance Use Disorders Study Committee met six times during the 2019 interim to study issues relating to the prevention, treatment, harm reduction, recovery, and criminal justice aspects of opioids and other substance use disorders. The committee heard testimony from experts, state agencies, and laypersons on issues related to these aspects. The committee requested the drafting of five bills and voted to advance all five bills to Legislative Council, all of which the Legislative Council approved.
Bill A: Concerning the prevention of substance use disorders.
The bill requires the commissioner of insurance (commissioner) to promulgate rules that establish diagnoses of covered conditions for which nonpharmacological alternatives to opioids are appropriate. The bill establishes minimum requirements for health benefit plans regarding coverage for physical therapy and occupational therapy or for acupuncture, and requires the commissioner to conduct an actuarial study to determine the economic feasibility before including acupuncture as a covered alternative treatment.
The bill prohibits an insurance carrier (carrier) from limiting or excluding coverage for an atypical opioid or a nonopioid medication, which the federal food and drug administration approves, by mandating that a covered person undergo step therapy or obtain prior authorization if the atypical opioid or nonopioid medication is prescribed by the covered person’s health care provider. The carrier must make the atypical opioid or nonopioid medication available at the lowest cost-sharing tier applicable to a covered opioid with the same indication.
The bill precludes a carrier that has a contract with a physical therapist, occupational therapist, or acupuncturist (therapy provider) from prohibiting the therapy provider from, or penalizing the therapy provider for, providing a covered person information on the amount of the person’s financial responsibility for received services or from requiring the therapy provider to charge or collect a copayment from a covered person that exceeds the total charges the therapy provider submits. The commissioner must take action against a carrier that violates these prohibitions.
The bill continues the current opioid prescribing limitation indefinitely. The bill requires the executive director of the department of regulatory agencies (department) to consult with the center for research into substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery support strategies (center) and the state medical board to promulgate rules establishing competency-based continuing education requirements for physicians and physician assistants concerning prescribing practices for opioids.
The bill modifies requirements for adding prescription information to the prescription drug monitoring program (program) and allows the department of health care policy and financing and the health information organization network access to the program. The bill continues indefinitely the requirement that a health care provider query the program before prescribing a second fill for an opioid and requires each health care provider to query the program before prescribing a benzodiazepine, unless certain exceptions apply. The bill also requires the director of the division of professions and occupations in the department to promulgate rules designating additional controlled substances and other prescription drugs that the program must track. In addition to queries related to autopsies, the bill allows medical examiners and coroners to query the program when conducting a death investigation.
The bill directs the office of behavioral health in the department of human services to convene a collaborative with institutions of higher education, nonprofit agencies, and state agencies to gather feedback from local public health agencies and the institutions and other agencies concerning evidence-based prevention practices.
Bill B: Concerning measures to reduce the harm caused by substance use disorders.
The bill requires a carrier that provides coverage for opiate antagonists to reimburse a hospital if the hospital provides a covered person with an opiate antagonist upon discharge. The bill allows a pharmacist or pharmacy technician to sell a nonprescription syringe or needle to any person. The bill extends civil and criminal immunity for a person who acts in good faith to furnish or administer an opiate antagonist to an individual the person believes to be suffering an opiate-related drug overdose when the opiate antagonist was expired. The bill removes the requirement that entities must receive local board of health approval before operating a clean syringe exchange program. Finally the bill continuously appropriates the money in the harm reduction grant program cash fund to the department of public health and environment for purposes of the program and establishes an annual appropriation of an amount equal to the appropriation for the 2019-20 fiscal year plus $250,000.
Bill C: Concerning treatment of individuals with substance use disorders who come into contact with the criminal justice system, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation.
The bill requires the department of corrections (DOC), local jails, multijurisdictional jails, municipal jails, and department of human services (DHS) facilities to provide at least one opioid agonist and one opioid antagonist to a person in custody with an opioid use disorder throughout the duration of the person’s incarceration or commitment. Under the bill, a person may dispose of controlled substances at a safe station and request assistance in gaining access to treatment for a substance use disorder. The DOC and jails must ensure that inmates receive continuity of care before release. The executive director of the DOC, in consultation with the offices of behavioral health and economic security in DHS, the department of health care policy and financing, the department of local affairs, and local service providers must develop resources for inmates post-release that provide information to help prepare inmates for release and reintegration into their communities.
The bill requires a court to consider whether a person who is the subject of a petition to seal criminal records has entered into or successfully completed a licensed substance use disorder treatment program. Under the bill, the office of behavioral health in DHS may contract with cities and counties for the creation, maintenance, or expansion of criminal justice diversion programs, and the bill appropriates money to the office for criminal justice diversion programs.
Bill D: Concerning treatment for substance use disorders.
The bill requires updated community assessments every two years of the sufficiency of substance use disorder services in the community. The department of human services (DHS) must contract with an independent entity to compile the assessments. Insurance carriers must provide coverage for the treatment of substance use disorders in accordance with the American society of addiction medicine (ASAM) criteria for placement, medical necessity, and utilization management determinations in accordance with the most recent edition of the ASAM criteria.
The bill increases funding by $1 million for provider loan forgiveness and scholarships from the Colorado health service corps fund in the department of public health and environment (CDPHE).
Under the bill, a pharmacy that enters into a collaborative pharmacy agreement with one or more physicians may receive an enhanced dispensing fee for administering all injectable medications for medication-assisted treatment that are approved by the federal food and drug administration, and not just injectable antagonist medication.
DHS must commission a state child care and treatment study and final report to make recommendations concerning gaps in family-centered substance use disorder treatment. DHS must identify alternative payment structures for funding child care and children’s services alongside substance use disorder treatment of a child’s parent.
The bill prohibits managed service organization contracted providers, withdrawal management services, and recovery residences from denying access to medical or substance use disorder treatment services, including recovery services, to persons who are participating in prescribed medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders. In addition, the bill prohibits courts and parole, probation, and community corrections from prohibiting the use of prescribed medication-assisted treatment as a condition of participation or placement. The bill requires managed care entities to provide coordination of care for the full continuum of substance use disorder and mental health treatment and recovery services, including support for individuals transitioning between levels of care.
The bill appropriates money to the office of behavioral health in DHS to allocate to the center for research into substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery support strategies for the continued employment of grant writers to aid local communities in accessing federal and state money to address opioid and other substance use disorders in their communities.
The commissioner of insurance, in consultation with CDPHE, may promulgate rules, or seek a revision of the essential health benefits package, for prescription medications for medication-assisted treatment to be included on insurance carriers’ formularies. Insurance carriers must report to the commissioner of insurance the number of in-network providers who are licensed to prescribe medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders, and of that number, must indicate how many providers are actively prescribing medication-assisted treatment.
The bill requires insurance carriers to provide coverage for naloxone hydrochloride, or other similarly acting drugs, without prior authorization and without imposing any deductible, copayment, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing requirement.
DHS must implement a program for training and community outreach relating to, at a minimum, the availability of and process for civil commitment of persons with an alcohol or substance use disorder. The bill consolidates statutes to create a single process for emergency treatment that includes all substances.
Bill E: Concerning measures to assist an individual’s recovery from a substance use disorder.
The bill annually appropriates $250,000 to the department of labor and employment to provide peer coaching and peer specialist training for individuals recovering from substance use disorders. The opioid and other substance use disorders study committee (committee) is continued for an additional four years, meeting every other year beginning in 2021.
The bill directs the state substance abuse trend and response task force to convene stakeholders to review progress on bills the committee introduces and the general assembly passes and generate policy recommendations related to opioid and other substance use disorders and to submit its annual report to the committee.
The bill modifies how the determination of child abuse, neglect, or dependency is made in situations involving alcohol or substance exposure.
The bill creates the recovery support services grant program in the office of behavioral health (office) in the department of human services to provide grants to recovery community organizations, and annually appropriates $3.5 million to implement the program. The bill also imposes the following requirements on the office and appropriates money for these purposes:
The bill imposes the following requirements on the center for research into substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery support strategies, and appropriates money to the center for these purposes:
To review the bills recommended by the Opioid and Other Substance Use Disorders Study Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Yelana Love.
The Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force met five times over the interim. Briefings and presentations were made by the Office of Legislative Legal Services, The Colorado department of Revenue (DOR), the Governor’s Office of Information Technology (OIT), the Colorado Municipal League, the Tax Foundation, the Coalition to Simplify Colorado Sales Tax, the Office of the State Auditor, and members of the public on a wide range of topics, including:
The task force requested the drafting of three bills and voted to advance two bills to Legislative Council, both of which the Legislative Council approved.
Bill A: Concerning the sales and use tax simplification task force, and, in connection therewith, extending the task force, modifying the task force’s duties, and removing the requirement that the task force undergo an evaluation by the department of regulatory agencies prior to the task force’s repeal.
The bill continues the sales and use tax simplification task force for five years, modifies the task force’s duties, and removes the requirement that the task force undergo an evaluation by the department of regulatory agencies before the task force’s repeal.
Bill B: Concerning certain address database systems used for sales and use tax collection.
The bill establishes a hold harmless provision for vendors who use the state’s geographic information system database (GIS database) to determine the jurisdictions to which sales or use tax is owed and to calculate appropriate sales or use tax rates for individual addresses.The department of revenue (department) must notify vendors when the GIS database is online, tested, and verified in writing by the department to be operational, supported, and available for use. The department must ensure that the GIS database data is at least 95% accurate based on a statistically valid sample of addresses from the database, or based on another acceptable method of proving accuracy. The executive director of the department must promulgate rules for the administration and use of the GIS database.
The bill specifies that the statutory section regarding certified address location databases used for collecting and remitting sales and use tax is repealed 90 days after the department notifies the revisor of statutes that a geographic information system that meets the defined scope of work set forth in the request for solicitation is online, tested, and verified in writing by the department to be operational, supported, and available for use. The department must notify the revisor of statutes no later than 15 days after the system is online, tested, and verified.
To review the bills recommended by the Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force, please visit the task force’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Esther van Mourik.
The Tax Expenditure Evaluation Interim Study Committee met four times over the interim to review the Office of the State Auditor’s tax expenditure evaluations. The committee heard from the Office of the State Auditor, the Colorado Department of Revenue, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Tax Foundation. The committee also heard from individual and business taxpayers who benefit from the tax expenditures reviewed by the Office of the State Auditor, and from their advocates. The committee requested the drafting of 19 bills, voted to advance five of these bills to Legislative Council, recommended five more of these bills to the Statutory Revision Committee, and sent a letter to the Joint Agricultural Committee recommending that the Joint Agricultural Committee review the sales and use tax exemptions for agricultural inputs. The Legislative Council approved the bills recommended to it for introduction.
Bill A: Concerning certain requirements that must be included in a tax expenditure bill.
Current law requires a legislative declaration stating the intended purpose of a new tax expenditure or the intended purpose for extending an expiring tax expenditure. The bill expands that law by:
Bill B: Concerning the repeal of the state sales tax exemption for long-term lodging.
Under current law, the sales tax exemption for long-term lodging exempts stays of 30 days or more at hotels, apartment hotels, lodging houses, motor hotels, guesthouses, guest ranches, trailer coaches, mobile homes, auto camps, or trailer courts and parks from the state sales tax on lodgings. The bill limits this exemption so that it only applies to natural persons.
Bill C: Concerning modifications to the state’s net operating loss deduction.
Currently, Colorado taxpayers can claim a net operating loss deduction on their Colorado tax return. Unless statute otherwise provides, the state deduction is currently allowed in the same manner that a similar deduction is allowed under the internal revenue code to determine federal taxable income.
Under current law, corporate taxpayers in Colorado are allowed to carry forward their net operating loss deduction for the same number of years as allowed for a federal net operating loss. For many years, taxpayers were limited to a 20-year carryforward period for both state and federal taxes. The federal “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (TCJA), enacted in 2017, allowed federal taxpayers unlimited years to carry forward net operating losses. Because Colorado’s statute specifies that net operating losses may be carried forward “for the same number of years as allowed for a federal net operating loss”, the TCJA’s change resulted in the same change to Colorado’s law. The bill partially decouples the corporate net operating loss deduction from the federal net operating loss deduction by returning the state’s carryforward period to 20 years.
The bill also repeals a state provision that was effective only for financial institutions, so that, for purposes of the period of years a loss can be carried forward, financial institutions will now be treated the same as any other taxpayer.
Bill D: Concerning the creation of the legislative oversight committee concerning tax policy.
The bill creates the legislative oversight committee concerning tax policy (committee), and the associated task force (task force).
The committee must consider the policy considerations contained in the tax expenditure evaluations prepared by the state auditor and is responsible for overseeing the task force. The committee may recommend legislative changes that are treated as bills recommended by an interim legislative committee.
The task force must study tax policy and develop and propose for committee consideration any modifications to the current system of state and local taxation.
The task force also may, upon request by a committee member, provide evidence-based feedback on the potential benefits or consequences of a legislative or other policy proposal not directly affiliated with or generated by the task force, including legislation introduced by the general assembly that affects tax policy.
Bill E: Concerning modifications to the sales tax exemption for certain energy uses.
Under current law, the sales tax exemption for energy use exempts from state sales tax the sale and purchase of electricity, gas, fuel oil, steam, coal, coke, or nuclear fuel used in processing, manufacturing, mining, refining, irrigation, construction, telegraph, telephone, and radio communication, street and railroad transportation services, and all industrial uses, and newsprint and printer’s ink used by newspaper publisher and commercial printers. The bill modifies this sales tax exemption to apply only when the energy is used by a metered machine.
To review the bills recommended by the Tax Expenditure Evaluation Interim Study Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Pierce Lively.
The prison population management interim study committee met five times during the 2019 interim to study strategies to reduce the prison population and reduce recidivism and to monitor prison population reform legislation passed by the General Assembly. The committee heard testimony on a wide range of issues from prison population drivers, recidivism drivers, inmate treatment needs, community corrections, juvenile sentencing, and many more. The committee requested the drafting of three bills and voted to advance all three bills to Legislative Council. Bill A was withdrawn before the Legislative Council vote, and is not described in this article. Bills B and C received favorable votes by Legislative Council.
Bill B: Concerning measures to manage the state prison population.
Under current law, the Centennial south campus of the Centennial correctional facility is only able to house inmates under limited circumstances. The bill opens the facility for close custody inmates and requires that, for each inmate who is housed at the facility, an inmate must be removed from a private prison until the facility is full.
The bill directs the department of corrections (department) to study how to end the practice of using private prisons by 2025 in a responsible way.
The bill adds the following to the list of achievements that allow an inmate to receive earned time: Showing exemplary leadership through mentoring; community service; and distinguished actions benefiting the health, safety, environment, and culture for staff and other inmates.
Under current law, an offender is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing for resentencing when the offender is rejected for placement in a community corrections program. The bill requires the sentencing court to provide the offender with an evidentiary hearing, or in the alternative a new sentencing hearing, for termination from a community corrections program.
The bill amends the escape statutes to exclude direct sentences, transitioning from the department to a community corrections program, or placement in an intensive supervision parole program from the concepts of custody or confinement for purposes of escape. The bill lowers the penalties for escape and attempted escape crimes. The bill creates a new crime of absconding if the location of a person on intensive supervision parole or a person in a community corrections program is unknown to the authorized agency responsible for the person’s supervision.
Bill C: Concerning a study to examine operational processes within the criminal justice system.
The bill requires the department of corrections (department) to conduct a study to examine how individuals proceed through the various stages of criminal proceedings, including the various sentences and programs to which a person may be sentenced or placed. Subject to available appropriations, the department shall issue a request for proposals for an entity to assist with the study. The department must produce a report of its findings to the joint budget committee and the judiciary committees of the General Assembly.
To review the bills recommended by the Prison Population Management Interim Study Committee, including Bill A, which was withdrawn, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Michael Dohr.
The Zero Waste and Recycling Interim Study Committee met during the 2019 interim to study waste and recycling infrastructure, composting, and zero-waste efforts in Colorado. On October 22, 2019, the Committee considered four bills drafts and subsequently voted to approve two of the drafts for the consideration of the Legislative Council on November 15, 2019. The Legislative Council approved both bills for introduction.
Bill A: Concerning the expansion of market mechanisms for the further development of recycling.
The bill directs the pollution prevention advisory board (board) within the department of public health and environment (department) to recommend to the department a structure and governing guidance for a recycling market development center to support the development of end-market businesses within the state. The bill also directs the department to conduct a literature review of what industry and other states are doing around the country regarding producer responsibility and to create policy and legislative recommendations regarding the feasibility of requiring producers to design, manage, and finance programs for end-of-life management of their products and packaging as a condition of sale.
The bill also allows the board to use the recycling resources economic opportunity fund and the front range waste diversion cash fund to reimburse eligible recycling businesses for locally assessed personal property taxes paid in the current tax year in this state on personal property. The bill directs the board to establish a formula to use in awarding personal property tax reimbursements.
The bill also requires the department, on and after October 1, 2020, to administer a statewide campaign to educate Colorado residents concerning recycling. The requirement is repealed, effective September 1, 2021.
Bill B: Concerning the development of a statewide organics management plan to promote compost use.
The bill tasks the executive director of the department of public health and environment (executive director) or the executive director’s designee and the commissioner of agriculture (commissioner) or the commissioner’s designee with developing an organics management plan (plan) on or before September 1, 2022. The department of public health and environment may incorporate the plan into the department’s existing work regarding organics management if its existing work meets the standards established for the organics management plan.
In developing the plan, the executive director and the commissioner must study and make recommendations regarding organic waste management practices to encourage compost use on soil to promote carbon storage. The executive director and the commissioner must also complete two statewide surveys as part of the plan: A survey that examines end uses for the major categories of organic waste feedstock generated within the state; and a survey that examines existing organic waste generation facilities and processing capacity. On or before February 1, 2023, the executive director must submit a report summarizing the plan to the legislative committees with jurisdiction over energy or agricultural matters.
To review the bills recommended by the Zero Waste and Recycling Interim Study Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Richard Sweetman.
by Patti Dahlberg
The First World War was over but for many, the post-war world was perilous. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which started during the war as a workers’ revolution and a protest against Russia’s involvement in the war, evolved into civil war ending with the violent overthrow of the Russian government and the establishment of a communist dictatorship. It should not be surprising that, as numerous post-war workers’ strikes throughout Europe and even in the United States became increasingly associated with violence, Americans’ fear of anarchy and communism amplified accordingly.
Social tensions throughout the world had been growing and, at times, erupting into violence for several decades. America had witnessed several fatal outcomes from labor conflicts, including the 1886 Haymarket bombing in Chicago and a bloody battle between Pinkerton agents and steel workers at the Homestead Steel Works in Pennsylvania. In Colorado, altercations during the 1913-14 Colorado Coal Wars became increasingly violent, resulting in the Ludlow Massacre on April 20, 1914, when the Colorado National Guard fired machine guns into a colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families and fire swept through the strikers’ tent city. Twenty men, women, and children were killed with many more injured. The ensuing retaliation assured continued confrontations and casualties after the massacre. Somewhere between 70 and 200 people were killed during Colorado’s Coal War. During the 1919 legislative session, Colorado was still dealing with the aftermath of the Ludlow tragedy as legislators appropriated funds for House Bill No. 311 “Commission for Investigation of Italian Government Claims” regarding the “alleged loss of lives, and destruction of property of certain Italian subjects during the strike of Coal Miners in Colorado in the year 1914.”
Organized labor had grown in strength during the course of the war. The labor movement helped abolish the 12-hour workday when 8-hour days were instituted on war contract work. By 1919, half of the country’s workers had a 48-hour work week. Normal work weeks remained at six days, although the 1919 Colorado General Assembly did pass Senate Bill No. 92 “Holidays – When and Where Saturday Afternoon is a Holiday” to designate Saturday afternoons in June, July, and August as holidays. High wartime inflation, with food prices doubling and clothing costs more than tripling between 1915 and 1920, further aggravated ongoing labor disputes. More than four million workers—one fifth of the nation’s workforce—participated in strikes in 1919, including 365,000 steelworkers and 400,000 miners. This quantity of striking workers would not be seen again until 1937—during the Great Depression.
Some Notable Strikes
Worker strikes in America became more than simple disputes between labor and management and, rightly or wrongly, became tinged with red and therefore a focal point for growing fears of anarchy and communism. For six days in February, the first “general strike” in American history occurred when thousands of Seattle workers joined shipyard workers in their strike for higher wages. The war made Seattle a union city; there were unions for shipyard workers, longshoremen, streetcar motormen, conductors, butchers, waitresses, laundry women, housemaids, barbers, and even newsboys. By the war’s end, Seattle had 110 unions representing about 60,000 union members, and almost all of them agreed to the sympathy strike. The “Seattle General Strike” lasted from
February 6 to February 11, 1919, For two of those days Seattle’s streets were completely still as union members stayed home in solidarity with the striking ship workers. Although the strike was completely peaceful, it was condemned as a communist (“red”) threat to American freedoms. Coverage of the strike often shared page-one headlines with news of communist military activity in Europe.
On September 9, 1919, more than 1,100 or roughly 80% of Boston’s police force went on strike to protest the opposition to its attempt to organize a union and to seek improved wages and working conditions. New hire pay had not risen in 60 years, and officers worked 73 to 98 hours, seven days a week with one day off every other week. The strike left Boston streets unsupervised and led to several days of civil unrest, rioting, looting, and property damage. Governor Calvin Coolidge called in the Massachusetts State Guard to restore order by force. Nine were killed during the strike and more than 20 were seriously wounded. Striking workers were called “deserters” and “agents of Lenin.” The strike ended on September 13, and the State Guard remained in charge until mid-December, when all of the striking police officers had been replaced with new workers who received higher wages and better working conditions.
The largest American strike occurred among steel workers in the Midwest from September 1919 to January 1920. Known as the “Great Steel Strike of 1919,” it shut down half the steel industry, including mills in Pueblo, Colorado. The strike eventually involved more than 350,000 workers in 24 separate unions. Workers demanded higher wages, an eight-hour workday, and recognition of their unions. Company owners portrayed the workers as dangerous radicals who threatened the American way of life, preying on social fears of communism. Because many of the striking workers were recent immigrants, owners were able to portray them as foreign instigators of trouble. Government officials used National Guard troops and federal troops to quell strikes in many cities. Eighteen strikers were killed, hundreds seriously injured, and thousands jailed over the course of the strike. At a time when communists were seizing power in Hungary and staging a revolt in Germany and workers in Italy were seizing factories, some industrialists feared that the steel strike was the first step toward overturning the American industrial system.
Sources:
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Great_Steel_Strike_of_1919
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/historical-context-post-world-war-i-labor-tensions
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/labour_movements_trade_unions_and_strikes_usa
by Ashley Athey
In honor of All Hallows’ Eve, we’re reposting our article on the spooky tales and apparitions that haunt the gold dome. Have you encountered one of these spirits? Let us know!
As with many old, historical buildings, a number of ghost stories haunt the Colorado state capitol. Officially, there are no ghosts to be found in the building. However, those of us who have smelled an odd perfume, seen an odd figure, or heard an odd hoof beat know better. In honor of Halloween, we present to you a few of the most notable ghosts that unofficially haunt our halls.
The Bloody Espinosas
Perhaps the most well-known story of the capitol, this tale begins in 1863. Back then, the Colorado settlement was four years young, and the Gold Rush had brought a curious crowd to the territory. Denver was less a big city and more a town full of tents and temporary occupants hoping to make it rich. A few smaller mining towns were popping up throughout the state as gold was discovered, including Breckenridge, Colorado City, and Black Hawk, but these developments upset many people who already lived in the area. Two brothers from New Mexico, Felipe and Vivian Espinosa, were especially irate at the pioneers moving onto their land in the San Luis Valley and, for the better part of 1863, were intent on killing as many of the new residents as they could. Numbers of the murdered vary, but it’s believed they killed between a dozen and 30 people in just a few months.
Accounts of how the brothers’ bloody careers ended differ, but eventually the brothers were killed, likely by a volunteer group of citizens from Park County. Their heads were brought to the capitol to collect the bounty set by the governor, but the governor refused to pay and no one knew what to do with the heads. They were first kept in the Treasurer’s Office in the capitol building but were later moved to the sub-basement beneath the capitol. Eventually, the heads were destroyed in the furnace.
Since then, it’s been said that the heads of the Espinosa brothers can be seen floating through the building after dark. And if you’ve ever heard the sound of horses galloping up and down the main staircase, well, that’s just the Bloody Espinosas…looking for their heads!
The Victorian Apparition
On the third floor of the capitol building, rumor has it that you can see the ghostly visage of a woman wearing Victorian-era garments. She appears out of a mist near the entrance to the senate chambers and then floats off to either side of the chamber before disappearing.
The Woman in a Long Dress
A female spirit, appearing in a long, turn-of-the-century dress, is said to wander the steam tunnels beneath the capitol, as well as the capitol building and all the buildings connected to the tunnels in the Capitol Hill area. She’s been seen reading over the shoulders of employees in each of the buildings.
The Mysterious Tunnels
Certainly the steam tunnels under the capitol building lend themselves to spooky stories and an overall heightened awareness. In addition to The Woman in a Long Dress, there have been reports of odd cold spells, during which keys, ID badges, and other items are pulled away from the body of the owner and lifted into the air by an unseen force.
General Spookiness
While the above stories illustrate a few of the known spirits, there are still a few more spooky happenings in the capitol building that don’t have a known explanation:
For more on the Espinosa brothers, check out the “Legends of America” article about them here.
by Julie Pelegrin
Each year, executive branch agencies in Colorado adopt between 400 and 500 sets of rules creating many thousands of pages of rules and accompanying materials. Specifically, in 2018 alone there were 457 sets of rules adopted. Counting the rules and corresponding materials, that totals up to 26,971 pages. That’s a lot of rules! And every one of those rules, along with the corresponding materials, was read and analyzed by a staff member of the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS).
This rule review function provides an instructive example of how the vague constitutional concept of separation of powers actually works between the legislative and executive branches. The legislature has the authority to make the laws. But in some instances, it makes more sense for the persons working directly with a program to decide the implementing details. In those situations, the legislature delegates some of its legislative authority to an executive branch department, allowing it to adopt rules. However, in adopting rules, the department must comply with statutes and cannot go beyond the authority that the legislature delegated to it. To ensure this does not happen, the legislature retains the ability to review the executive branch department’s rules and approve only those rules that are within the department’s rule-making authority and do not conflict with state or federal law.
This process for reviewing and approving executive branch department rules is found in the State Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires each department to 
submit every rule that it adopts or revises within a one-year period to the OLLS for review under the supervision of the Committee on Legal Services (Committee). The standard of review is based on language in §24-4-103 (8)(a), C.R.S., which states, “No rule shall be issued except within the power delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.” The vast majority of rules meet these requirements. But sometimes a rule conflicts with a statute or the constitution or does not fit within the limits of the department’s rule-making authority. At that point, the Committee and the General Assembly turn to the process laid out in the APA.
The APA establishes a year-round cycle for reviewing rules. Under §24-4-103 (8), C.R.S., rules adopted during the one-year period from November 1 through October 31 automatically expire on the next May 15, unless the General Assembly extends the rules by passing a bill. This annual bill is called the Rule Review Bill and is sponsored by the Committee. This year, it’s introduced as S.B. 19-168. The Rule Review Bill postpones the automatic expiration of all of the adopted department rules, except for those rules listed in the bill that the Committee has decided should expire because the rules: 1) lack statutory authority, 2) exceed statutory authority, or 3) conflict with a state or federal statute or constitutional provision.
During the process of reviewing the rules, if the OLLS staff finds one of those three grounds for challenging a rule, the staff contacts the department to discuss the issues with the rule. If the department disagrees with the analysis or is unable to fix the problems identified with the rule, the staff schedules the rule issue for a hearing before the Committee. The OLLS staff writes a memo for the Committee explaining its analysis, and the department may also submit a responsive memo to the Committee.
At the hearing, the OLLS staff and if, they choose to appear at the hearing and make a presentation, the department staff or the department of law staff representing the department explain their positions to the Committee, and the Committee takes public testimony. At the end of the hearing, the Committee votes to either extend the rule through the Rule Review Bill or allow the rule to expire. The Committee bases its decision on the legal question of the authority of the rule—not on whether the rule in question is good or bad policy for the state. After the Rule Review Bill passes, the OLLS staff transmits the bill to the Secretary of State’s office, which removes any expired rules from the Colorado Code of Regulations.
Sometimes a department will seek a change to a statute to provide authority for a rule. The Committee will not carry a bill to do this, but if an individual legislator introduces and passes such a bill, the Committee will amend the Rule Review Bill so that the newly authorized rule does not expire.
Another legislative oversight function that the OLLS carries out relates to tracking legislation that requires or authorizes departments to adopt rules. Many legislators, after passing bills that create 
new programs, later ask, “Did the department ever adopt rules to implement my bill?” Section 24-4-103 (8)(e), C.R.S., requires the OLLS to identify rules related to newly enacted bills and notify prime sponsors and cosponsors when the department adopts rules required or authorized by the new legislation. The OLLS sends out e-mail notices to prime sponsors and co-sponsors when the rules are adopted.
But what if you want to know whether a department ever adopted rules to implement a bill you heard in a committee of reference? Or what if you’re a legislator and you no longer have the e-mail notice? Anyone can look up rule implementation information at any time on the OLLS’s homepage under a tab entitled Rule Review. The OLLS maintains a chart that is organized by committees of reference and lists each bill for which rules are adopted. The chart also provides a link to the rule information that each department files during the rule adoption process.
Section 24-4-103 (8)(e), C.R.S., also requires the OLLS to notify the current members of the applicable committees of reference when these rules are adopted. Each January, the OLLS sends an email notice to the committees of reference with the chart of rules that the OLLS has compiled.
So, while the legislature is willing, when appropriate, to delegate some of its authority to the executive branch by authorizing a department to adopt rules, the legislature keeps a close eye on how that authority is exercised, ensuring that the department stays within the lines.
by Thomas Morris
In our previous article about the history of rule review, we looked at the process from its pre-legislative oversight era to 1976, when the General Assembly required legislative oversight of executive branch rules. In today’s article, we pick up one year later, when the General Assembly made more changes to the process.
Legislative review of existing rules. In 1977, just one year after directing committees of reference or the Committee on Legal Services (COLS) to conduct the initial level of legislative oversight of new rules, the General Assembly enacted a law[1] that, among several other significant changes, removed the authority to amend a rule and directed the “legislative drafting office” (the predecessor to the OLLS) to conduct the initial review:
24-4-103. Rule-making – procedure. (8) (d) All rules adopted or amended on or after July 1, 1976, including temporary or emergency rules, shall be submitted by the adopting agency to the appropriate committees of reference of the general assembly, if the general assembly is in session or to legislative drafting office in the form and manner prescribed by the committee on legal services. Said rules and amendments to existing rules shall be filed by and in such office and shall be first reviewed by the staff of said committee to determine whether said rules and amendments are within the agency’s rule-making authority, and for later review by the committee of legal services if the general assembly is not in session, for its opinion as to whether the rules conform with paragraph (a) of this subsection (8). The official certificate of the director of the legislative drafting office as to the fact of submission or the date of submission or a rule as shown by the records of his office, as well as to the fact of nonsubmission as shown by the nonexistence of such records, shall be received and held in all civil cases as competent evidence of the facts contained therein. Any such rule or amendment to an existing rule issued by any agency without being so submitted to the appropriate committees of reference or within twenty days after the date of the attorney general’s opinion rendered thereon to the legislative drafting office for review by the committee of legal services shall be void. The staff’s finding shall be presented to said committee at a public meeting held after timely notice to the public and affected agencies. The committee on legal services shall, on affirmative vote, submit such rules, comments, and resolutions as deemed appropriate to the legislative committees of reference proposed legislation at the next regular session of the general assembly. The committee on legal services shall be the committee of reference for any bill introduced pursuant to this paragraph (d). A committee of reference, or the committee on legal services, or Any member of the general assembly may introduce a bill which amends or rescinds or deletes portions of the rule. Rejection of such a bill does not constitute legislative approval of the rule. Only that portion of any rule specifically disapproved by bill shall no longer be effective, and that portion of the rule which remains after deletion of a portion thereof shall retain its character as an administrative rule. Passage of a bill repealing a rule does not result in revival of a predecessor rule. Where the rule or amendment to an existing rule will have a fiscal impact on the state or any of its political subdivisions, the agency shall include a fiscal statement thereof with the rule or amendment submitted to the appropriate committees of reference or the committee on legal services legislative drafting office. This paragraph (d) does not apply to rules of agency organization or general statements of policy which are not meant to be binding as rules. For the purpose of performing the functions assigned it by this paragraph (d), the committee on legal services, with the approval of the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate, may appoint subcommittees from the membership of the general assembly. In addition, the said committee shall establish a program for the systematic review of all agency rules adopted prior to July 1, 1976, and in effect at the time of such review, which review shall be completed within a reasonable time not to exceed five years.
Significantly, the final sentence of this statute directed the COLS to “establish a program for the systematic review of all agency rules adopted prior to July 1, 1976”.[2] In 1979, evidently to implement this program for legislative review of existing rules, the General Assembly enacted HB79-1063, which:
Section 24-4-108 (1) provided that, “[u]nless extended by the general assembly acting by bill, all of the rules and regulations of the principal departments shall expire on the dates specified in this section.” Subsections (2) through (6) of this section then specified, respectively, that all existing rules of the various departments would expire on July 1 of the five years commencing on or after July 1, 1980. Subsection (7) specified that the General Assembly could “postpone by bill the expiration of rules and regulations, or any portion thereof, as often as necessary, but no such postponement shall exceed four years.”[6] The General Assembly also amended subsection (7) to authorize the COLS to “establish procedures for the implementation of review of rules and regulations contemplated by this section including, but not limited to, a procedure for annual review of rules and regulations which may conflict with statutes or statutory changes adopted subsequent to review of a department’s rules and regulations pursuant to this section.”[7]
After this 5-year legislative review of existing rules ran its course,[8] the statutes governing the legislative review of rules assumed much of their current form:
For a LegiSource article that explains the current standards and procedures for legislative rule review in more detail, see “Parsing Powers: Legislative Review of State Department Rules“.
[1] HB 77-1646; L. 77, p. 1141, §1.
[2] Recall that the General Assembly had already directed the attorney general to review all existing rules in section 3-16-2 (8)(c) (enacted by SB 67-102) (see footnote 7 above).
[3] L. 79, p. 845, §1. The General Assembly later modified law governing the automatic expiration of rules, section 24-4-103 (8)(c)(I), C.R.S., by specifying that all rules adopted during the one-year period from November 1 to the following October 31 automatically expire on the May 15 that follows the one-year period unless the General Assembly postpones the expiration acting by bill. SB 93-035; L. 93, p. 496, §1.
[4] L. 79, p. 845, §2.
[5] L. 79, p. 846, §3.
[6]The General Assembly soon repealed the four-year limit on postponement. SB 81-294; L. 81, p. 1145, §1.
[7] SB 81-294; L.81, p. 1145, §1.
[8] The legislature enacted several bills to repeal parts or all of subsections (2) through (6) of section 24-4-108, C.R.S., from 1980 to 1984.